@cubis/foundry 0.3.10

package/Ai Agent Workflow/workflows/agent-environment-setup/platforms/copilot/skills/variant-analysis/METHODOLOGY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,327 @@
+# The Philosophy of Generic but Precise Variant Analysis
+
+This document covers the strategic thinking behind effective variant analysis.
+
+## Why Variants Exist
+
+Vulnerabilities cluster because developers make consistent mistakes:
+
+1. **Developer habits**: Same person writes similar code, makes similar errors
+2. **Copy-paste propagation**: Boilerplate spreads bugs across the codebase
+3. **API misuse patterns**: Complex APIs invite consistent misunderstandings
+4. **Framework idioms**: Framework patterns create predictable vulnerability shapes
+5. **Incomplete fixes**: Original bug fixed in one place, missed elsewhere
+
+Understanding WHY variants exist helps predict WHERE to find them.
+
+## Root Cause Analysis
+
+Before searching, extract the essential vulnerability pattern:
+
+### Ask These Questions
+
+1. **What operation is dangerous?** (e.g., `eval()`, `system()`, raw SQL)
+2. **What data makes it dangerous?** (e.g., user-controlled input)
+3. **What's missing?** (e.g., sanitization, validation, bounds check)
+4. **What context enables it?** (e.g., authentication state, error handling path)
+
+### The Root Cause Statement
+
+Formulate a clear statement:
+
+> "This vulnerability exists because [UNTRUSTED DATA] reaches [DANGEROUS OPERATION] without [REQUIRED PROTECTION]."
+
+Examples:
+- "User input reaches `eval()` without sanitization"
+- "Attacker-controlled size reaches `malloc()` without overflow check"
+- "Untrusted path reaches `open()` without canonicalization"
+
+This statement IS your search pattern.
+
+## The Abstraction Ladder
+
+Patterns exist at different abstraction levels. Start at Level 0 and climb.
+
+### Level 0: Exact Match
+
+Match the literal vulnerable code:
+
+```python
+# Original vulnerable code
+query = "SELECT * FROM users WHERE id=" + request.args.get('id')
+```
+
+```bash
+# Level 0 pattern
+rg 'SELECT \* FROM users WHERE id=" \+ request\.args\.get'
+```
+
+- **Matches**: 1 (the original)
+- **False positives**: 0
+- **Value**: Confirms the bug exists, baseline for generalization
+
+### Level 1: Variable Abstraction
+
+Replace variable names with wildcards:
+
+```yaml
+# Level 1 pattern
+pattern: $QUERY = "SELECT * FROM users WHERE id=" + $INPUT
+```
+
+- **Matches**: 3-5 (same query pattern, different variables)
+- **False positives**: Low
+- **Value**: Find copy-paste variants
+
+### Level 2: Structural Abstraction
+
+Generalize the structure:
+
+```yaml
+# Level 2 pattern
+patterns:
+  - pattern: $Q = "..." + $INPUT
+  - pattern-inside: |
+      def $FUNC(...):
+        ...
+        cursor.execute($Q)
+```
+
+- **Matches**: 10-30 (any string concat used in query)
+- **False positives**: Medium
+- **Value**: Find pattern variants
+
+### Level 3: Semantic Abstraction
+
+Abstract to the security property:
+
+```yaml
+# Level 3 pattern (taint mode)
+mode: taint
+pattern-sources:
+  - pattern: request.args.get(...)
+  - pattern: request.form.get(...)
+pattern-sinks:
+  - pattern: cursor.execute(...)
+```
+
+- **Matches**: 50-100+ (any user input to any query)
+- **False positives**: High (many will have proper parameterization)
+- **Value**: Comprehensive coverage, requires triage
+
+### Choosing Your Level
+
+| Goal | Recommended Level |
+|------|-------------------|
+| Verify a specific fix | Level 0 |
+| Find copy-paste bugs | Level 1 |
+| Audit a component | Level 2 |
+| Full security assessment | Level 3 |
+
+## The Generalization Process
+
+### Rule: One Change at a Time
+
+Never generalize multiple elements simultaneously:
+
+```
+BAD:  exact code -> fully abstract pattern
+GOOD: exact code -> abstract var1 -> abstract var2 -> abstract operation
+```
+
+Each step:
+1. Make ONE change
+2. Run the pattern
+3. Review ALL new matches
+4. Decide: acceptable FP rate?
+5. Continue or revert
+
+### Decision Points
+
+At each generalization step, ask:
+
+**Should I abstract this variable name?**
+- YES if: Different names could have same bug
+- NO if: The name indicates a specific semantic meaning you want to preserve
+
+**Should I abstract this literal value?**
+- YES if: Any value would trigger the bug
+- NO if: Only specific values (like `2` in a shift operation) are dangerous
+
+**Should I use `...` wildcards?**
+- YES if: Argument position doesn't matter
+- NO if: Only specific argument positions are sinks
+
+**Should I add taint tracking?**
+- YES if: Need to verify data actually flows from source to sink
+- NO if: Presence of pattern is sufficient evidence
+
+## False Positive Management
+
+### Acceptable FP Rates by Context
+
+| Context | Acceptable FP Rate |
+|---------|-------------------|
+| Automated CI blocking | <5% |
+| Developer warning | <20% |
+| Security audit triage | <50% |
+| Research/exploration | <80% |
+
+### Common FP Sources and Filters
+
+**Dead code**: Add reachability constraints
+```yaml
+pattern-not-inside: |
+  if False:
+    ...
+```
+
+**Test code**: Exclude test directories
+```bash
+rg "pattern" --glob '!**/test*' --glob '!**/*_test.*'
+```
+
+**Already sanitized**: Add sanitizer patterns
+```yaml
+pattern-not: dangerous_func(sanitize($X))
+```
+
+**Literal values**: Exclude non-user-controlled data
+```yaml
+pattern-not: dangerous_func("...")  # Literal string
+```
+
+## Multi-Repository Campaign
+
+For large-scale hunts: **Recon** (ripgrep to find hotspots) → **Deep Analysis** (Semgrep/CodeQL on hotspots) → **Refinement** (reduce FPs) → **Automation** (CI-ready rules).
+
+## Tracking Your Hunt
+
+Maintain a tracking document:
+
+```markdown
+## Variant Analysis: [Original Bug ID]
+
+### Root Cause
+[Statement of the vulnerability pattern]
+
+### Patterns Tried
+| Pattern | Level | Matches | True Pos | False Pos | Notes |
+|---------|-------|---------|----------|-----------|-------|
+| exact   | 0     | 1       | 1        | 0         | Baseline |
+| ...     | ...   | ...     | ...      | ...       | ...   |
+
+### Confirmed Variants
+| Location | Severity | Status | Notes |
+|----------|----------|--------|-------|
+| file:line| High     | Fixed  | ...   |
+
+### False Positive Patterns
+- Pattern X: Always FP because [reason]
+- Pattern Y: FP in [context] but TP in [context]
+```
+
+## Anti-Patterns to Avoid
+
+### Starting Too Generic
+
+**Wrong**: Jump straight to semantic analysis
+**Right**: Start with exact match, generalize incrementally
+
+### Generalizing Everything
+
+**Wrong**: Abstract all elements at once
+**Right**: Abstract one element, verify, repeat
+
+### Ignoring False Positives
+
+**Wrong**: "I'll triage later"
+**Right**: Analyze FPs immediately, they guide pattern refinement
+
+### Tool Loyalty
+
+**Wrong**: "I only use CodeQL"
+**Right**: Use ripgrep for recon, Semgrep for iteration, CodeQL for precision
+
+### Pattern Hoarding
+
+**Wrong**: Keep all patterns regardless of FP rate
+**Right**: Delete patterns that don't provide value
+
+## Expanding Vulnerability Classes
+
+A single root cause can manifest in multiple ways. Before concluding your search, systematically expand to related vulnerability classes.
+
+### The Expansion Checklist
+
+For each root cause, ask:
+
+1. **What other attributes/functions have similar semantics?**
+   - If bug involves `isAuthenticated`, also check: `isActive`, `isAdmin`, `isVerified`, `isLoggedIn`
+   - If bug involves `userId`, also check: `ownerId`, `creatorId`, `authorId`
+
+2. **What other boolean logic errors could occur?**
+   - Inverted conditions (`if not x` vs `if x`)
+   - Wrong default return value (`return true` vs `return false`)
+   - Short-circuit evaluation errors
+
+3. **What edge cases exist for the data types involved?**
+   - Null/None/undefined comparisons
+   - Empty string vs null
+   - Zero vs null
+   - Empty array/collection
+
+4. **What documentation mismatches could exist?**
+   - Function does opposite of docstring
+   - Parameter meaning inverted
+   - Return value semantics reversed
+
+### Semantic Analysis
+
+Some bugs can only be found by comparing code behavior to documented intent:
+
+**Pattern:** Function name or docstring suggests one behavior, code does another
+
+```python
+# Docstring says "Returns True if access should be DENIED"
+# But code returns True when user HAS permission (should be allowed)
+def check_restricted_permission(user, perm):
+    """Returns True if access should be DENIED."""
+    if user.has_perm(perm):
+        return True  # BUG: This grants access to users with permission
+    return False
+```
+
+**Detection strategy:**
+1. Search for functions with "deny", "restrict", "block", "forbid" in names
+2. Manually verify return value semantics match the name/docs
+3. Create rules that flag suspicious patterns for manual review
+
+### Null Equality Bypasses
+
+A common class of authorization bypass:
+
+```python
+# If anonymous_user.id is None and guest_order.owner_id is None
+# Then None == None evaluates to True, bypassing the check
+if order.owner_id == current_user.id:
+    return True  # Allows access
+```
+
+**Detection strategy:**
+1. Find all owner/permission checks using equality comparisons
+2. Trace what values the compared fields can have
+3. Check if both sides can be null simultaneously
+
+## Summary: The Expert Mindset
+
+1. **Understand before searching**: Root cause analysis is non-negotiable
+2. **Start specific**: Your first pattern should match exactly one thing
+3. **Climb the ladder**: Generalize one step at a time
+4. **Measure as you go**: Track matches and FP rates at each step
+5. **Know when to stop**: High FP rate means you've gone too far
+6. **Iterate ruthlessly**: Refine patterns based on what you learn
+7. **Document everything**: Your tracking doc is as valuable as your patterns
+8. **Expand vulnerability classes**: One root cause has many manifestations
+9. **Check semantics**: Verify code matches documentation intent
+10. **Test edge cases**: Null values and boundary conditions reveal hidden bugs

package/Ai Agent Workflow/workflows/agent-environment-setup/platforms/copilot/skills/variant-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+---
+name: variant-analysis
+description: Find similar vulnerabilities and bugs across codebases using pattern-based analysis. Use when hunting bug variants, building CodeQL/Semgrep queries, analyzing security vulnerabilities, or performing systematic code audits after finding an initial issue.
+---
+
+# Variant Analysis
+
+You are a variant analysis expert. Your role is to help find similar vulnerabilities and bugs across a codebase after identifying an initial pattern.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use this skill when:
+- A vulnerability has been found and you need to search for similar instances
+- Building or refining CodeQL/Semgrep queries for security patterns
+- Performing systematic code audits after an initial issue discovery
+- Hunting for bug variants across a codebase
+- Analyzing how a single root cause manifests in different code paths
+
+## When NOT to Use
+
+Do NOT use this skill for:
+- Initial vulnerability discovery (use audit-context-building or domain-specific audits instead)
+- General code review without a known pattern to search for
+- Writing fix recommendations (use issue-writer instead)
+- Understanding unfamiliar code (use audit-context-building for deep comprehension first)
+
+## The Five-Step Process
+
+### Step 1: Understand the Original Issue
+
+Before searching, deeply understand the known bug:
+- **What is the root cause?** Not the symptom, but WHY it's vulnerable
+- **What conditions are required?** Control flow, data flow, state
+- **What makes it exploitable?** User control, missing validation, etc.
+
+### Step 2: Create an Exact Match
+
+Start with a pattern that matches ONLY the known instance:
+```bash
+rg -n "exact_vulnerable_code_here"
+```
+Verify: Does it match exactly ONE location (the original)?
+
+### Step 3: Identify Abstraction Points
+
+| Element | Keep Specific | Can Abstract |
+|---------|---------------|--------------|
+| Function name | If unique to bug | If pattern applies to family |
+| Variable names | Never | Always use metavariables |
+| Literal values | If value matters | If any value triggers bug |
+| Arguments | If position matters | Use `...` wildcards |
+
+### Step 4: Iteratively Generalize
+
+**Change ONE element at a time:**
+1. Run the pattern
+2. Review ALL new matches
+3. Classify: true positive or false positive?
+4. If FP rate acceptable, generalize next element
+5. If FP rate too high, revert and try different abstraction
+
+**Stop when false positive rate exceeds ~50%**
+
+### Step 5: Analyze and Triage Results
+
+For each match, document:
+- **Location**: File, line, function
+- **Confidence**: High/Medium/Low
+- **Exploitability**: Reachable? Controllable inputs?
+- **Priority**: Based on impact and exploitability
+
+For deeper strategic guidance, see [METHODOLOGY.md](METHODOLOGY.md).
+
+## Tool Selection
+
+| Scenario | Tool | Why |
+|----------|------|-----|
+| Quick surface search | ripgrep | Fast, zero setup |
+| Simple pattern matching | Semgrep | Easy syntax, no build needed |
+| Data flow tracking | Semgrep taint / CodeQL | Follows values across functions |
+| Cross-function analysis | CodeQL | Best interprocedural analysis |
+| Non-building code | Semgrep | Works on incomplete code |
+
+## Key Principles
+
+1. **Root cause first**: Understand WHY before searching for WHERE
+2. **Start specific**: First pattern should match exactly the known bug
+3. **One change at a time**: Generalize incrementally, verify after each change
+4. **Know when to stop**: 50%+ FP rate means you've gone too generic
+5. **Search everywhere**: Always search the ENTIRE codebase, not just the module where the bug was found
+6. **Expand vulnerability classes**: One root cause often has multiple manifestations
+
+## Critical Pitfalls to Avoid
+
+These common mistakes cause analysts to miss real vulnerabilities:
+
+### 1. Narrow Search Scope
+
+Searching only the module where the original bug was found misses variants in other locations.
+
+**Example:** Bug found in `api/handlers/` → only searching that directory → missing variant in `utils/auth.py`
+
+**Mitigation:** Always run searches against the entire codebase root directory.
+
+### 2. Pattern Too Specific
+
+Using only the exact attribute/function from the original bug misses variants using related constructs.
+
+**Example:** Bug uses `isAuthenticated` check → only searching for that exact term → missing bugs using related properties like `isActive`, `isAdmin`, `isVerified`
+
+**Mitigation:** Enumerate ALL semantically related attributes/functions for the bug class.
+
+### 3. Single Vulnerability Class
+
+Focusing on only one manifestation of the root cause misses other ways the same logic error appears.
+
+**Example:** Original bug is "return allow when condition is false" → only searching that pattern → missing:
+- Null equality bypasses (`null == null` evaluates to true)
+- Documentation/code mismatches (function does opposite of what docs claim)
+- Inverted conditional logic (wrong branch taken)
+
+**Mitigation:** List all possible manifestations of the root cause before searching.
+
+### 4. Missing Edge Cases
+
+Testing patterns only with "normal" scenarios misses vulnerabilities triggered by edge cases.
+
+**Example:** Testing auth checks only with valid users → missing bypass when `userId = null` matches `resourceOwnerId = null`
+
+**Mitigation:** Test with: unauthenticated users, null/undefined values, empty collections, and boundary conditions.
+
+## Resources
+
+Ready-to-use templates in `resources/`:
+
+**CodeQL** (`resources/codeql/`):
+- `python.ql`, `javascript.ql`, `java.ql`, `go.ql`, `cpp.ql`
+
+**Semgrep** (`resources/semgrep/`):
+- `python.yaml`, `javascript.yaml`, `java.yaml`, `go.yaml`, `cpp.yaml`
+
+**Report**: `resources/variant-report-template.md`

package/Ai Agent Workflow/workflows/agent-environment-setup/platforms/copilot/skills/variant-analysis/resources/codeql/cpp.ql

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+/**
+ * @name [VARIANT_NAME]
+ * @description Find variants of [ORIGINAL_BUG_ID]
+ * @kind path-problem
+ * @problem.severity error
+ * @tags security variant-analysis
+ */
+
+import cpp
+import semmle.code.cpp.dataflow.new.TaintTracking
+import semmle.code.cpp.security.Security
+import DataFlow::PathGraph
+
+module VariantConfig implements DataFlow::ConfigSig {
+  predicate isSource(DataFlow::Node source) {
+    // Command line arguments
+    exists(Parameter p |
+      p.getName() = "argv" and
+      source.asParameter() = p
+    )
+    or
+    // Standard input
+    exists(FunctionCall fc |
+      fc.getTarget().getName() in ["gets", "fgets", "scanf", "fscanf", "sscanf", "getline", "getchar", "fgetc"] and
+      source.asExpr() = fc
+    )
+    or
+    // Network input
+    exists(FunctionCall fc |
+      fc.getTarget().getName() in ["recv", "recvfrom", "recvmsg", "read"] and
+      source.asExpr() = fc
+    )
+    or
+    // Environment variables
+    exists(FunctionCall fc |
+      fc.getTarget().getName() = "getenv" and
+      source.asExpr() = fc
+    )
+    or
+    // File input
+    exists(FunctionCall fc |
+      fc.getTarget().getName() in ["fread", "fgets"] and
+      source.asExpr() = fc.getArgument(0)
+    )
+  }
+
+  predicate isSink(DataFlow::Node sink) {
+    // Command injection
+    exists(FunctionCall fc |
+      fc.getTarget().getName() in ["system", "popen", "execl", "execlp", "execle", "execv", "execvp", "execvpe"] and
+      sink.asExpr() = fc.getArgument(0)
+    )
+    or
+    // Buffer overflow (unsafe string functions)
+    exists(FunctionCall fc |
+      fc.getTarget().getName() in ["strcpy", "strcat", "sprintf", "vsprintf", "gets"] and
+      sink.asExpr() = fc.getArgument(1)
+    )
+    or
+    // Format string
+    exists(FunctionCall fc |
+      fc.getTarget().getName() in ["printf", "fprintf", "sprintf", "snprintf", "syslog"] and
+      sink.asExpr() = fc.getArgument(0)
+    )
+    or
+    // Memory allocation (integer overflow)
+    exists(FunctionCall fc |
+      fc.getTarget().getName() in ["malloc", "calloc", "realloc", "alloca"] and
+      sink.asExpr() = fc.getArgument(0)
+    )
+    or
+    // Path traversal
+    exists(FunctionCall fc |
+      fc.getTarget().getName() in ["fopen", "open", "access", "stat", "lstat"] and
+      sink.asExpr() = fc.getArgument(0)
+    )
+    or
+    // SQL (if using embedded SQL or libraries)
+    exists(FunctionCall fc |
+      fc.getTarget().getName().matches("%query%") and
+      sink.asExpr() = fc.getAnArgument()
+    )
+  }
+
+  predicate isBarrier(DataFlow::Node node) {
+    // Input validation
+    exists(FunctionCall fc |
+      fc.getTarget().getName() in ["strlen", "strnlen", "isalpha", "isdigit", "isalnum"] and
+      node.asExpr() = fc
+    )
+    or
+    // Safe string functions (size-bounded)
+    exists(FunctionCall fc |
+      fc.getTarget().getName() in ["strncpy", "strncat", "snprintf"] and
+      node.asExpr() = fc
+    )
+    or
+    // Sanitization
+    exists(FunctionCall fc |
+      fc.getTarget().getName().matches("%escape%") and
+      node.asExpr() = fc
+    )
+    or
+    // Integer bounds check
+    exists(IfStmt check, RelationalOperation cmp |
+      cmp = check.getCondition() and
+      node.asExpr() = cmp.getAnOperand()
+    )
+  }
+}
+
+module VariantFlow = TaintTracking::Global<VariantConfig>;
+import VariantFlow::PathGraph
+
+from VariantFlow::PathNode source, VariantFlow::PathNode sink
+where VariantFlow::flowPath(source, sink)
+select sink.getNode(), source, sink,
+  "Tainted data from $@ flows to dangerous sink.",
+  source.getNode(), "user input"

package/Ai Agent Workflow/workflows/agent-environment-setup/platforms/copilot/skills/variant-analysis/resources/codeql/go.ql

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+/**
+ * @name [VARIANT_NAME]
+ * @description Find variants of [ORIGINAL_BUG_ID]
+ * @kind path-problem
+ * @problem.severity error
+ * @tags security variant-analysis
+ */
+
+import go
+import semmle.go.dataflow.TaintTracking
+import DataFlow::PathGraph
+
+module VariantConfig implements DataFlow::ConfigSig {
+  predicate isSource(DataFlow::Node source) {
+    // HTTP request values
+    exists(DataFlow::CallNode c |
+      c.getTarget().hasQualifiedName("net/http", "Request", ["FormValue", "PostFormValue"]) and
+      source = c.getResult()
+    )
+    or
+    // URL query params
+    exists(DataFlow::CallNode c |
+      c.getTarget().hasQualifiedName("net/url", "Values", "Get") and
+      source = c.getResult()
+    )
+    or
+    // Gin framework
+    exists(DataFlow::CallNode c |
+      c.getTarget().hasQualifiedName("github.com/gin-gonic/gin", "Context", ["Query", "Param", "PostForm"]) and
+      source = c.getResult()
+    )
+  }
+
+  predicate isSink(DataFlow::Node sink) {
+    // Command injection
+    exists(DataFlow::CallNode c |
+      c.getTarget().hasQualifiedName("os/exec", "Command") and
+      sink = c.getArgument(0)
+    )
+    or
+    // SQL injection
+    exists(DataFlow::CallNode c |
+      c.getTarget().hasQualifiedName("database/sql", "DB", ["Query", "Exec", "QueryRow"]) and
+      sink = c.getArgument(0)
+    )
+    or
+    // Path traversal
+    exists(DataFlow::CallNode c |
+      c.getTarget().hasQualifiedName("os", ["Open", "OpenFile", "ReadFile"]) and
+      sink = c.getArgument(0)
+    )
+  }
+
+  predicate isBarrier(DataFlow::Node node) {
+    exists(DataFlow::CallNode c |
+      c.getTarget().getName() in ["Escape", "Quote", "Clean", "ParseInt", "Atoi"] and
+      node = c.getResult()
+    )
+  }
+}
+
+module VariantFlow = TaintTracking::Global<VariantConfig>;
+import VariantFlow::PathGraph
+
+from VariantFlow::PathNode source, VariantFlow::PathNode sink
+where VariantFlow::flowPath(source, sink)
+select sink.getNode(), source, sink,
+  "Tainted data from $@ flows to dangerous sink.",
+  source.getNode(), "user input"