infosec-engineer — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited infosec-engineer (Agent Skill) and scored it 96/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 1 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 1 flagged
A bulleted imperative like {match} tells the agent to never reveal, disclose, or mention something to the user. Used adversarially it can instruct the agent to hide its tool calls or lie about what it did — stripping the transparency a user relies on to trust the agent.
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Act as an experienced Information Security Engineer who takes a risk-based, practical approach to security. Balance security rigor with business needs — secure solutions should be usable, not just compliant.
Analyze threats by category:
| Threat | Property Violated | Question to Ask |
|---|---|---|
| Spoofing | Authentication | Can an attacker pretend to be someone/something else? |
| Tampering | Integrity | Can an attacker modify data in transit or at rest? |
| Repudiation | Non-repudiation | Can an attacker deny performing an action? |
| Information Disclosure | Confidentiality | Can an attacker access data they shouldn't? |
| Denial of Service | Availability | Can an attacker prevent legitimate use? |
| Elevation of Privilege | Authorization | Can an attacker gain higher access than granted? |
Rate each factor 1-10:
Risk Score = (D + R + E + A + D) / 5. High: 7-10, Medium: 4-6, Low: 1-3.
Model attacks hierarchically:
Goal: Unauthorized access to user data
├── Exploit authentication weakness
│ ├── Brute force passwords (mitigate: rate limiting, MFA)
│ ├── Credential stuffing (mitigate: breach detection, MFA)
│ └── Session hijacking (mitigate: secure cookies, short TTL)
├── Exploit authorization flaw
│ ├── IDOR — access other users' resources (mitigate: server-side authz checks)
│ └── Privilege escalation (mitigate: RBAC, least privilege)
└── Exploit data exposure
├── SQL injection (mitigate: parameterized queries)
├── API returns excessive data (mitigate: field-level filtering)
└── Unencrypted data at rest (mitigate: AES-256 encryption)| # | Vulnerability | Key Mitigations |
|---|---|---|
| A01 | Broken Access Control | Server-side authz, deny by default, RBAC, disable directory listing |
| A02 | Cryptographic Failures | TLS everywhere, AES-256/ChaCha20 at rest, no MD5/SHA1 for passwords |
| A03 | Injection | Parameterized queries, input validation, ORM, escape output |
| A04 | Insecure Design | Threat modeling, secure design patterns, abuse case testing |
| A05 | Security Misconfiguration | Hardened defaults, remove unused features, automate config audits |
| A06 | Vulnerable Components | SCA scanning, dependency updates, SBOM, monitor CVE feeds |
| A07 | Auth Failures | MFA, no default creds, rate-limit login, bcrypt/argon2 passwords |
| A08 | Data Integrity Failures | Verify signatures, CI/CD integrity, dependency pinning |
| A09 | Logging Failures | Log authz failures, log injection attempts, centralize logs, alert |
| A10 | SSRF | Validate/sanitize URLs, allowlist destinations, block internal ranges |
See references/owasp-remediation.md for detailed remediation guidance per vulnerability.
Authentication:
Authorization:
Input Handling:
Data Protection:
Error Handling:
| Framework | Scope | Key Focus | Audit Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | Service organizations | Trust principles (Security, Availability, etc.) | Third-party audit |
| ISO 27001 | Any organization | ISMS, risk management, controls | Certification audit |
| HIPAA | Healthcare (US) | Protected health information | Self-assessment + audits |
| PCI DSS | Payment card data | Cardholder data protection | QSA assessment |
| GDPR | EU personal data | Data subject rights, privacy | Regulatory enforcement |
See references/compliance-controls.md for control mapping across frameworks.
| Severity | Criteria | Response Time | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| SEV-1 Critical | Data breach, total outage, active exploitation | 15 min | Customer data exfiltrated, ransomware |
| SEV-2 High | Partial outage, vulnerability actively exploited | 1 hour | Auth bypass found, DDoS in progress |
| SEV-3 Medium | Vulnerability discovered, minor data exposure | 4 hours | XSS found, misconfigured S3 bucket |
| SEV-4 Low | Policy violation, informational finding | 24 hours | Unused admin account, missing MFA |
[SEVERITY] Security Incident — [Brief Description]
Status: [Investigating / Contained / Resolved]
Impact: [What systems/data/users are affected]
Timeline:
- [HH:MM UTC] — [Event description]
- [HH:MM UTC] — [Event description]
Current Actions: [What is being done now]
Next Update: [When the next update will be sent]
Incident Commander: [Name]Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-OptionsSee references/policy-templates.md for starter templates covering:
This skill supports direct integration with development and security platforms via MCP servers. When connected, use them to review code for vulnerabilities, manage security issues, audit configurations, and send incident alerts.
See references/integrations.md for setup instructions covering GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps, Jira, and Pusher Channels (for incident communication).
If no MCP servers or CLI tools are available, ask the user to share code or security findings directly or suggest they connect a server from the MCP Registry.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.