🛡️ Skill: security-hardening

Purpose

Security retrofitted after the fact costs 10× more than security built in. This skill applies a consistent security lens at write-time and review-time — not as an afterthought audit. It covers the OWASP Top 10 patterns that appear most frequently in real deliverables.

Trigger phrases

• "security review"
• "harden this"
• "is this secure"
• "security-hardening"
• "check for vulnerabilities"
• "review this for security issues"

Boundary system (apply at all times)

Always do — no exceptions

Ask first — requires human approval

• Any change to authentication or session management
• New endpoints that accept file uploads
• New third-party integrations that receive user data
• Any change to user roles or permission logic
• Storing a new category of sensitive data (PII, payment, health)

Never do

• Commit secrets, tokens, or credentials to version control — even in test files
• Log passwords, tokens, or PII to stdout/files
• Trust client-side validation as a security boundary
• Expose raw stack traces or internal error details to end users
• Use eval(), exec(), or equivalents on user input
• Disable security linting rules to make CI pass

Steps

1. Identify the attack surface

Before reviewing or writing code, map:

• What inputs does this code accept? (HTTP request, file upload, env var, DB read, IPC)
• What does it output? (HTTP response, DB write, file write, shell command)
• What trust boundaries does it cross?

2. Check OWASP Top 10 coverage

Work through the relevant categories for the code in scope:

3. Flag findings with severity

For each issue found:

[HIGH]   SQL injection risk — user input concatenated into query at api/users.ts:42
[MEDIUM] Missing authorisation check — any authenticated user can access /admin/export
[LOW]    Security header X-Frame-Options not set in middleware
[INFO]   bcrypt work factor is 10 — consider 12 for new deployments

Severity guide:

• HIGH — exploitable by an unauthenticated user or directly exposes data
• MEDIUM — exploitable by an authenticated user or requires specific conditions
• LOW — defence-in-depth gap, not directly exploitable
• INFO — best-practice recommendation, no immediate risk

4. Pre-deployment security checklist

Run this before any production deployment:

Authentication & Sessions
  [ ] Passwords hashed with bcrypt/argon2 (work factor ≥ 12)
  [ ] Session tokens expire and are invalidated on logout
  [ ] MFA available for admin accounts

Authorisation
  [ ] Every endpoint checks both authentication AND authorisation
  [ ] No IDOR — IDs in requests are validated as belonging to the requesting user

Input Validation
  [ ] All external input validated at the boundary (schema validation)
  [ ] File uploads: type checked, size limited, stored outside web root

Data Protection
  [ ] No secrets in code, config files, or logs
  [ ] PII encrypted at rest if stored
  [ ] HTTPS enforced; HSTS header set

Dependencies
  [ ] npm audit / pip-audit run with zero high/critical findings
  [ ] No packages with known critical CVEs

Infrastructure
  [ ] Debug mode / verbose errors disabled in production
  [ ] Minimal IAM permissions (least privilege)
  [ ] No default credentials on any service

5. Report

Security review: <filename or scope>

Findings:
  [HIGH]   <description> — <file>:<line>
  [MEDIUM] <description> — <file>:<line>
  [LOW]    <description> — <file>:<line>

Pre-deployment checklist: ✓ / ✗ (list failed items)

Recommendation: <fix HIGH findings before merging / safe to merge with noted caveats>

Guardrails

• Never mark a HIGH finding as acceptable without explicit user confirmation.
• Never add a dependency to fix a security issue without verifying the dependency itself is not a bigger risk.
• If a security fix requires a design change (e.g. the entire auth model is wrong), surface it as a separate task — do not silently work around it.
• Do not remove or disable security linting rules to make CI pass.