@guava-parity/guard-scanner 13.0.0 → 16.0.0
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/README.md +170 -215
- package/README_ja.md +252 -0
- package/SECURITY.md +12 -4
- package/SKILL.md +148 -57
- package/dist/cli.cjs +5997 -0
- package/dist/cli.d.mts +1 -0
- package/dist/cli.d.ts +1 -0
- package/dist/cli.mjs +6003 -0
- package/dist/index.cjs +4825 -0
- package/dist/index.d.mts +17 -0
- package/dist/index.d.ts +17 -0
- package/dist/index.mjs +4798 -0
- package/dist/mcp-server.cjs +4756 -0
- package/dist/mcp-server.d.mts +1 -0
- package/dist/mcp-server.d.ts +1 -0
- package/dist/mcp-server.mjs +4767 -0
- package/dist/openclaw-plugin.cjs +4863 -0
- package/dist/openclaw-plugin.d.mts +11 -0
- package/dist/openclaw-plugin.d.ts +11 -0
- package/dist/openclaw-plugin.mjs +4854 -0
- package/dist/types.cjs +18 -0
- package/dist/types.d.mts +215 -0
- package/dist/types.d.ts +215 -0
- package/dist/types.mjs +1 -0
- package/docs/EVIDENCE_DRIVEN.md +182 -0
- package/docs/banner.png +0 -0
- package/docs/data/benchmark-ledger.json +1428 -0
- package/docs/data/corpus-metrics.json +11 -0
- package/docs/data/fp-ledger.json +18 -0
- package/docs/data/latest.json +25837 -2481
- package/docs/data/quality-contract.json +36 -0
- package/docs/generated/npm-audit-20260312.json +96 -0
- package/docs/generated/openclaw-upstream-status.json +25 -0
- package/docs/glossary.md +46 -0
- package/docs/index.html +1085 -496
- package/docs/logo.png +0 -0
- package/docs/openclaw-compatibility-audit.md +45 -0
- package/docs/openclaw-continuous-compatibility-plan.md +37 -0
- package/docs/rules/a2a-contagion.md +68 -0
- package/docs/rules/advanced-exfil.md +52 -0
- package/docs/rules/agent-protocol.md +108 -0
- package/docs/rules/api-abuse.md +68 -0
- package/docs/rules/autonomous-risk.md +92 -0
- package/docs/rules/config-impact.md +132 -0
- package/docs/rules/credential-handling.md +100 -0
- package/docs/rules/cve-patterns.md +332 -0
- package/docs/rules/data-exposure.md +84 -0
- package/docs/rules/exfiltration.md +36 -0
- package/docs/rules/financial-access.md +84 -0
- package/docs/rules/identity-hijack.md +140 -0
- package/docs/rules/inference-manipulation.md +60 -0
- package/docs/rules/leaky-skills.md +52 -0
- package/docs/rules/malicious-code.md +108 -0
- package/docs/rules/mcp-security.md +148 -0
- package/docs/rules/memory-poisoning.md +84 -0
- package/docs/rules/model-poisoning.md +44 -0
- package/docs/rules/obfuscation.md +60 -0
- package/docs/rules/persistence.md +108 -0
- package/docs/rules/pii-exposure.md +116 -0
- package/docs/rules/prompt-injection.md +148 -0
- package/docs/rules/prompt-worm.md +44 -0
- package/docs/rules/safeguard-bypass.md +44 -0
- package/docs/rules/sandbox-escape.md +100 -0
- package/docs/rules/secret-detection.md +44 -0
- package/docs/rules/supply-chain-v2.md +92 -0
- package/docs/rules/suspicious-download.md +60 -0
- package/docs/rules/trust-boundary.md +76 -0
- package/docs/rules/trust-exploitation.md +92 -0
- package/docs/rules/unverifiable-deps.md +84 -0
- package/docs/rules/vdb-injection.md +84 -0
- package/docs/security-vulnerability-report-20260312.md +53 -0
- package/docs/spec/PRD_V2_ARCHITECTURE.md +55 -0
- package/docs/spec/capabilities.json +174 -0
- package/docs/spec/finding.schema.json +104 -0
- package/docs/spec/integration-manifest.md +39 -0
- package/docs/spec/plugin-trust.json +11 -0
- package/docs/spec/sbom.json +33 -0
- package/docs/threat-model.md +65 -0
- package/docs/v13-architecture-manifest.md +55 -0
- package/hooks/context.ts +306 -0
- package/hooks/guard-scanner/plugin.ts +24 -1
- package/openclaw-plugin.mts +107 -0
- package/openclaw.plugin.json +30 -53
- package/package.json +66 -13
- package/src/asset-auditor.js +0 -508
- package/src/ci-reporter.js +0 -135
- package/src/cli.js +0 -294
- package/src/html-template.js +0 -239
- package/src/ioc-db.js +0 -54
- package/src/mcp-server.js +0 -702
- package/src/patterns.js +0 -611
- package/src/quarantine.js +0 -41
- package/src/runtime-guard.js +0 -346
- package/src/scanner.js +0 -1157
- package/src/vt-client.js +0 -202
- package/src/watcher.js +0 -170
|
@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Threat Category: credential-handling
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This document provides explainability for all rules in the `credential-handling` category.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Rule: `CRED_ENV_FILE`
|
|
6
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
7
|
+
- **Description**: Reading .env file
|
|
8
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
9
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
10
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
11
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Rule: `CRED_ENV_REF`
|
|
14
|
+
- **Severity**: MEDIUM
|
|
15
|
+
- **Description**: Sensitive env var access
|
|
16
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
17
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
18
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
19
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Rule: `CRED_SSH`
|
|
22
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
23
|
+
- **Description**: SSH key access
|
|
24
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
25
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
26
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
27
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Rule: `CRED_WALLET`
|
|
30
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
31
|
+
- **Description**: Crypto wallet credential access
|
|
32
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
33
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
34
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
35
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## Rule: `CRED_ECHO`
|
|
38
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
39
|
+
- **Description**: Credential echo/print to output
|
|
40
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
41
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
42
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
43
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
## Rule: `CRED_SUDO`
|
|
46
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
47
|
+
- **Description**: Sudo in installation instructions
|
|
48
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
49
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
50
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
51
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
## Rule: `CRED_KEYCHAIN_DUMP`
|
|
54
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
55
|
+
- **Description**: Credential theft: macOS Keychain dumping
|
|
56
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
57
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
58
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
59
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
60
|
+
|
|
61
|
+
## Rule: `CRED_BROWSER_COOKIE`
|
|
62
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
63
|
+
- **Description**: Credential theft: browser cookie/credential database extraction
|
|
64
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
65
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
66
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
67
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
## Rule: `CRED_MIMIKATZ_PATTERN`
|
|
70
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
71
|
+
- **Description**: Credential theft: Mimikatz-style credential dumping tool
|
|
72
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
73
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
74
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
75
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
## Rule: `CRED_CLOUD_METADATA`
|
|
78
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
79
|
+
- **Description**: Credential theft: cloud metadata endpoint access for IAM token theft
|
|
80
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
81
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
82
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
83
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
84
|
+
|
|
85
|
+
## Rule: `CRED_GIT_CREDENTIAL`
|
|
86
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
87
|
+
- **Description**: Credential theft: git credential file access
|
|
88
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
89
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
90
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
91
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
92
|
+
|
|
93
|
+
## Rule: `CRED_KUBE_CONFIG`
|
|
94
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
95
|
+
- **Description**: Credential theft: Kubernetes config with cluster credentials
|
|
96
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
97
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
98
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
99
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
100
|
+
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,332 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Threat Category: cve-patterns
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This document provides explainability for all rules in the `cve-patterns` category.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_GATEWAY_URL`
|
|
6
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
7
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-25253: gatewayUrl injection
|
|
8
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
9
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
10
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
11
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_SANDBOX_DISABLE`
|
|
14
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
15
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-25253: sandbox disabling
|
|
16
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
17
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
18
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
19
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_XATTR_GATEKEEPER`
|
|
22
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
23
|
+
- **Description**: macOS Gatekeeper bypass (xattr)
|
|
24
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
25
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
26
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
27
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_LANGGRINCH_SERIALIZATION`
|
|
30
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
31
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2025-68664: LangGrinch langchain-core serialization injection
|
|
32
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
33
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
34
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
35
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## Rule: `CAMOLEAK_SOURCE_EXFIL`
|
|
38
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
39
|
+
- **Description**: CVSS 9.6: CamoLeak silent source code exfiltration via telemetry endpoints
|
|
40
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
41
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
42
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
43
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
## Rule: `HAVOC_AMOS`
|
|
46
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
47
|
+
- **Description**: ClawHavoc: AMOS/Atomic Stealer
|
|
48
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
49
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
50
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
51
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
## Rule: `HAVOC_AUTOTOOL`
|
|
54
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
55
|
+
- **Description**: Python os.system reverse shell
|
|
56
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
57
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
58
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
59
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
60
|
+
|
|
61
|
+
## Rule: `HAVOC_DEVTCP`
|
|
62
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
63
|
+
- **Description**: Reverse shell: /dev/tcp
|
|
64
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
65
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
66
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
67
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_WS_NO_ORIGIN`
|
|
70
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
71
|
+
- **Description**: WebSocket without origin validation
|
|
72
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
73
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
74
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
75
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_API_GUARDRAIL_OFF`
|
|
78
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
79
|
+
- **Description**: API-level guardrail disabling
|
|
80
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
81
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
82
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
83
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
84
|
+
|
|
85
|
+
## Rule: `VDB_SK_RCE_FILTER`
|
|
86
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
87
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-26030: Semantic Kernel VectorStore RCE filter bypass
|
|
88
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
89
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
90
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
91
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
92
|
+
|
|
93
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_CLAUDE_INFO_DISC`
|
|
94
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
95
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-21852: Anthropic API Key Leak (Claude Code Info Disclosure)
|
|
96
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
97
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
98
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
99
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
100
|
+
|
|
101
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_CLAUDE_PRIVESC`
|
|
102
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
103
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-25725: Claude Code Privilege Escalation Hook
|
|
104
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
105
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
106
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
107
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
108
|
+
|
|
109
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_CLAUDE_CODE_INJ`
|
|
110
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
111
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2025-59536: Claude Code Injection via untrusted hook
|
|
112
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
113
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
114
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
115
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
116
|
+
|
|
117
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_MCP_PYODIDE_RCE`
|
|
118
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
119
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-25905: mcp-run-python Pyodide sandbox escape RCE
|
|
120
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
121
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
122
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
123
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
124
|
+
|
|
125
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_MCP_ATLASSIAN_RCE`
|
|
126
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
127
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-27825: mcp-atlassian unauthenticated RCE+SSRF via path traversal
|
|
128
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
129
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
130
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
131
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
132
|
+
|
|
133
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_MSAGENT_SHELL`
|
|
134
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
135
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-2256: MS-Agent check_safe() denylist bypass — unsanitized shell execution (CERT VU#431821)
|
|
136
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
137
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
138
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
139
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
140
|
+
|
|
141
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_MSAGENT_DENYLIST`
|
|
142
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
143
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-2256: Regex denylist pattern (bypassable)
|
|
144
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
145
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
146
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
147
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
148
|
+
|
|
149
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_KIMI_EXECSYNC`
|
|
150
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
151
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-25046: execSync with unsanitized filename (shell metachar injection)
|
|
152
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
153
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
154
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
155
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
156
|
+
|
|
157
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_LANGFLOW_CSVAGENT`
|
|
158
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
159
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-27966: Langflow CSV Agent RCE — allow_dangerous_code=True enables python_repl_ast code execution
|
|
160
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
161
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
162
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
163
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
164
|
+
|
|
165
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_LANGFLOW_REPL`
|
|
166
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
167
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-27966: LangChain Python REPL tool (RCE vector via prompt injection)
|
|
168
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
169
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
170
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
171
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
172
|
+
|
|
173
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_MCPJAM_RCE`
|
|
174
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
175
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-23744: MCPJam Inspector unauthenticated RCE via /api/mcp/connect endpoint
|
|
176
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
177
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
178
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
179
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
180
|
+
|
|
181
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_SSRF_CVE`
|
|
182
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
183
|
+
- **Description**: Known MCP server CVEs: path traversal / argument injection / scoping bypass
|
|
184
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
185
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
186
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
187
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
188
|
+
|
|
189
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_PROMPT_TO_SHELL`
|
|
190
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
191
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-2256 extended: prompt/user_input → shell execution chain
|
|
192
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
193
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
194
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
195
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
196
|
+
|
|
197
|
+
## Rule: `OPENCLAW_WSS_HIJACK`
|
|
198
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
199
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-25253: OpenClaw Localhost WebSocket Hijacking
|
|
200
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
201
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
202
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
203
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
204
|
+
|
|
205
|
+
## Rule: `OPENCLAW_GATEWAY_RCE`
|
|
206
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
207
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-25253: OpenClaw Gateway RCE via unvalidated gatewayUrl query param
|
|
208
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
209
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
210
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
211
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
212
|
+
|
|
213
|
+
## Rule: `OPENCLAW_DOCKER_PATH_INJECT`
|
|
214
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
215
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-24763: OpenClaw Docker PATH command injection
|
|
216
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
217
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
218
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
219
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
220
|
+
|
|
221
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_2026_0628_GEMINI_CHROME`
|
|
222
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
223
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-0628: Chrome Gemini AI extension privilege escalation — panel hijack
|
|
224
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
225
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
226
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
227
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
228
|
+
|
|
229
|
+
## Rule: `OPENWEBUI_MODEL_TRUST`
|
|
230
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
231
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2025-64496: Open WebUI excessive model endpoint trust → token theft + backend RCE
|
|
232
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
233
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
234
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
235
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
236
|
+
|
|
237
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_CHROME_GEMINI_HIJACK`
|
|
238
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
239
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-0628: Chrome extension → Gemini AI hijack (camera/mic/files access)
|
|
240
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
241
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
242
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
243
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
244
|
+
|
|
245
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_MARKDOWN_RCE`
|
|
246
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
247
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-22813: Markdown render pipeline with disabled sanitization (RCE vector)
|
|
248
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
249
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
250
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
251
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
252
|
+
|
|
253
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_SHELL_EXPANSION_FILENAME`
|
|
254
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
255
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-29783: Shell expansion via unquoted filename/path variable injection
|
|
256
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
257
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
258
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
259
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
260
|
+
|
|
261
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_GIT_PATH_TRAVERSAL`
|
|
262
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
263
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2025-68143: mcp-server-git path traversal in repository creation
|
|
264
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
265
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
266
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
267
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
268
|
+
|
|
269
|
+
## Rule: `CISCO_AI_SUPPLY_CHAIN`
|
|
270
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
271
|
+
- **Description**: Cisco AI supply chain: dependency confusion via AI agents in CI/CD pipeline
|
|
272
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
273
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
274
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
275
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
276
|
+
|
|
277
|
+
## Rule: `LORA_SLEEPER_INJECT`
|
|
278
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
279
|
+
- **Description**: LoRA sleeper injection: malicious adapter silently replacing baseline model weights
|
|
280
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
281
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
282
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
283
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
284
|
+
|
|
285
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_AGENT_CWD_INJECT`
|
|
286
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
287
|
+
- **Description**: CVE-2026-27001: unsanitized CWD/directory path injection into LLM prompt context
|
|
288
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
289
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
290
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
291
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
292
|
+
|
|
293
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_IDESASTER_CHAIN`
|
|
294
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
295
|
+
- **Description**: IDEsaster: IDE config file combined with code execution (24 CVE chain)
|
|
296
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
297
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
298
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
299
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
300
|
+
|
|
301
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_COPILOT_PI_RCE`
|
|
302
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
303
|
+
- **Description**: GitHub Copilot prompt injection to RCE (CVE-2025-53773)
|
|
304
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
305
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
306
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
307
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
308
|
+
|
|
309
|
+
## Rule: `CVE_CLAUDE_CODE_WS_BYPASS`
|
|
310
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
311
|
+
- **Description**: Claude Code WebSocket unauthenticated local connection (CVE-2025-52882)
|
|
312
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
313
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
314
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
315
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
316
|
+
|
|
317
|
+
## Rule: `PLEASEFIX_BROWSER_HIJACK`
|
|
318
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
319
|
+
- **Description**: PleaseFix: browser hijack via calendar invite with extension abuse (Zenity Labs)
|
|
320
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
321
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
322
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
323
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
324
|
+
|
|
325
|
+
## Rule: `OPENCLAW_CVE_CHAIN_2026`
|
|
326
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
327
|
+
- **Description**: OpenClaw CVE chain 2026 — brute-force auth, device registration, token theft
|
|
328
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
329
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
330
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
331
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
332
|
+
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Threat Category: data-exposure
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This document provides explainability for all rules in the `data-exposure` category.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Rule: `AUTO_REFINE_MOLTBOOK_LEAK`
|
|
6
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
7
|
+
- **Description**: Moltbook-style API Key Leak Detection
|
|
8
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
9
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
10
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
11
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Rule: `MOLTBOOK_API_KEY_LEAK`
|
|
14
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
15
|
+
- **Description**: Moltbook API Extractor payload targeting Supabase keys
|
|
16
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
17
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
18
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
19
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Rule: `DATA_VERBOSE_ERROR`
|
|
22
|
+
- **Severity**: MEDIUM
|
|
23
|
+
- **Description**: Data exposure: verbose error/stack trace in HTTP response
|
|
24
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
25
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
26
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
27
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Rule: `DATA_DEBUG_ENDPOINT`
|
|
30
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
31
|
+
- **Description**: Data exposure: debug/admin endpoint exposed in production
|
|
32
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
33
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
34
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
35
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## Rule: `DATA_DIRECTORY_LISTING`
|
|
38
|
+
- **Severity**: MEDIUM
|
|
39
|
+
- **Description**: Data exposure: directory listing enabled in static file server
|
|
40
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
41
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
42
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
43
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
## Rule: `DATA_CORS_CREDENTIALS`
|
|
46
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
47
|
+
- **Description**: Data exposure: CORS with credentials + wildcard origin
|
|
48
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
49
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
50
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
51
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
## Rule: `DATA_LOG_SENSITIVE`
|
|
54
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
55
|
+
- **Description**: Data exposure: logging sensitive data (passwords, tokens, keys)
|
|
56
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
57
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
58
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
59
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
60
|
+
|
|
61
|
+
## Rule: `DATA_HEADER_LEAK`
|
|
62
|
+
- **Severity**: LOW
|
|
63
|
+
- **Description**: Data exposure: server technology disclosure via HTTP headers
|
|
64
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
65
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
66
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
67
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
## Rule: `DATA_GIT_EXPOSED`
|
|
70
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
71
|
+
- **Description**: Data exposure: .git directory or .env file accessible
|
|
72
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
73
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
74
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
75
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
## Rule: `DATA_BACKUP_FILE`
|
|
78
|
+
- **Severity**: MEDIUM
|
|
79
|
+
- **Description**: Data exposure: backup/temporary files left in accessible location
|
|
80
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
81
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
82
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
83
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
84
|
+
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Threat Category: exfiltration
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This document provides explainability for all rules in the `exfiltration` category.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Rule: `EXFIL_WEBHOOK`
|
|
6
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
7
|
+
- **Description**: Known exfiltration endpoint
|
|
8
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
9
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
10
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
11
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Rule: `EXFIL_POST`
|
|
14
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
15
|
+
- **Description**: POST with sensitive data
|
|
16
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
17
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
18
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
19
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Rule: `EXFIL_CURL_DATA`
|
|
22
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
23
|
+
- **Description**: curl exfiltration of secrets
|
|
24
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
25
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
26
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
27
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Rule: `EXFIL_DNS`
|
|
30
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
31
|
+
- **Description**: DNS-based exfiltration
|
|
32
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
33
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
34
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
35
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Threat Category: financial-access
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This document provides explainability for all rules in the `financial-access` category.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Rule: `FIN_CRYPTO`
|
|
6
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
7
|
+
- **Description**: Cryptocurrency transaction operations
|
|
8
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
9
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
10
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
11
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Rule: `FIN_PAYMENT`
|
|
14
|
+
- **Severity**: MEDIUM
|
|
15
|
+
- **Description**: Payment API integration
|
|
16
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
17
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
18
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
19
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Rule: `FIN_WALLET_DRAIN`
|
|
22
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
23
|
+
- **Description**: Financial: wallet/account draining attempt
|
|
24
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
25
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
26
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
27
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Rule: `FIN_PRIVATE_KEY_EXTRACT`
|
|
30
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
31
|
+
- **Description**: Financial: private key or seed phrase extraction
|
|
32
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
33
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
34
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
35
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## Rule: `FIN_SWAP_FRONTRUN`
|
|
38
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
39
|
+
- **Description**: Financial: DEX swap frontrunning/sandwich attack
|
|
40
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
41
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
42
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
43
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
## Rule: `FIN_FLASH_LOAN`
|
|
46
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
47
|
+
- **Description**: Financial: flash loan exploit pattern
|
|
48
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
49
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
50
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
51
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
## Rule: `FIN_APPROVAL_UNLIMITED`
|
|
54
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
55
|
+
- **Description**: Financial: unlimited token approval (ERC20 approval drain risk)
|
|
56
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
57
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
58
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
59
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
60
|
+
|
|
61
|
+
## Rule: `FIN_REENTRANCY`
|
|
62
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
63
|
+
- **Description**: Financial: reentrancy vulnerability pattern in smart contract
|
|
64
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
65
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
66
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
67
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
## Rule: `FIN_PRICE_ORACLE_MANIP`
|
|
70
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
71
|
+
- **Description**: Financial: price oracle manipulation attack
|
|
72
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
73
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
74
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
75
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
## Rule: `FIN_RUGPULL_PATTERN`
|
|
78
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
79
|
+
- **Description**: Financial: rug pull/exit scam (admin liquidity removal)
|
|
80
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
81
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
82
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
83
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
84
|
+
|