framework-mcp 1.3.7 → 1.4.0

package/examples/llm-analysis-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,553 @@
+# LLM Analysis Patterns for Framework MCP v1.4.0
+
+This guide demonstrates advanced analysis patterns enabled by Framework MCP's Pure Data Provider architecture. LLMs can now perform sophisticated, context-aware vendor capability analysis with unprecedented flexibility.
+
+## 🎯 Core Analysis Philosophy
+
+**Pure Data + Intelligent Analysis**: Framework MCP provides authoritative CIS Controls data while LLMs apply sophisticated reasoning, context awareness, and custom methodologies for vendor assessment.
+
+## 📋 Standard Analysis Patterns
+
+### 1. Basic Capability Assessment
+
+**Pattern**: Get safeguard data → Analyze vendor response → Determine capability role
+
+```bash
+claude-code "Get safeguard details for 5.1, then analyze this vendor response: 
+Okta - 'Our identity platform provides centralized user management, automated provisioning workflows, role-based access controls, and quarterly access reviews with compliance reporting.'
+
+Determine the appropriate capability role and provide confidence assessment."
+```
+
+**Expected LLM Analysis**:
+```
+CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT: Okta vs Safeguard 5.1
+
+PRIMARY ROLE: FULL
+ADDITIONAL ROLES: GOVERNANCE, VALIDATES
+CONFIDENCE: 89%
+
+REASONING:
+✅ Core Requirements: Complete user inventory and centralized management
+✅ Sub-Elements: Automated workflows and role-based controls
+✅ Governance: Quarterly review processes and compliance frameworks
+✅ Validation: Reporting and audit capabilities
+
+RECOMMENDATION: Strong FULL capability with governance and validation features. Suitable for IG2-IG3 implementations.
+```
+
+### 2. Comparative Multi-Vendor Analysis
+
+**Pattern**: Get safeguard data → Compare multiple vendors → Rank and recommend
+
+```bash
+claude-code "Get safeguard 1.1 details. Compare these asset management solutions for a 500-employee technology company:
+
+1. Lansweeper: 'Automated network discovery, comprehensive hardware/software inventory, real-time asset tracking'
+2. ServiceNow CMDB: 'Configuration management database, workflow automation, change tracking'  
+3. Microsoft Intune: 'Managed device inventory, Azure AD integration, mobile device management'
+
+Rank by implementation completeness and provide deployment recommendations."
+```
+
+**Expected LLM Analysis**:
+```
+COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: Asset Management Solutions (Safeguard 1.1)
+
+RANKING BY IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETENESS:
+
+🥇 LANSWEEPER (FULL + VALIDATES)
+- Comprehensive automated discovery
+- Real-time tracking capabilities  
+- Strong technical implementation
+- Deployment: Medium complexity, 2-3 months
+
+🥈 MICROSOFT INTUNE (PARTIAL + GOVERNANCE)
+- Limited to managed devices only
+- Strong Azure integration advantage
+- Good governance capabilities
+- Deployment: Low complexity (if Microsoft stack), 1-2 months
+
+🥉 SERVICENOW CMDB (FACILITATES + GOVERNANCE)  
+- Requires manual data entry processes
+- Excellent workflow and governance
+- Facilitates comprehensive tracking
+- Deployment: High complexity, 4-6 months
+
+RECOMMENDATION FOR 500-EMPLOYEE TECH COMPANY:
+- Primary: Lansweeper for immediate IG1 compliance
+- Consider: Intune if Microsoft-centric environment  
+- Future: ServiceNow for enterprise maturity and complex workflows
+```
+
+## 🎨 Advanced Analysis Patterns
+
+### 3. Compliance-Focused Assessment
+
+**Pattern**: Get safeguard data → Apply compliance framework → Assess vendor capability
+
+```bash
+claude-code "Get safeguard 8.2 details. For a PCI-DSS Level 1 merchant processing 10M+ transactions annually, analyze Splunk Enterprise Security:
+
+'Centralized log management, real-time security monitoring, automated threat detection, compliance reporting, and data retention policies.'
+
+Focus on PCI-DSS requirements and provide implementation timeline."
+```
+
+**Expected LLM Analysis**:
+```
+PCI-DSS COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS: Splunk Enterprise Security vs Safeguard 8.2
+
+CAPABILITY: FULL + VALIDATES + GOVERNANCE
+PCI-DSS ALIGNMENT: 94%
+
+PCI-DSS REQUIREMENT MAPPING:
+✅ 10.2 - Automated log generation for security events
+✅ 10.3 - Record keeping for all system components  
+✅ 10.5 - File integrity monitoring capabilities
+✅ 10.6 - Daily log review processes
+✅ 10.7 - Retention policies (1 year online, 3 years archive)
+
+STRENGTHS FOR PCI-DSS:
+- Real-time monitoring meets continuous compliance
+- Automated reporting reduces manual audit burden
+- Centralized architecture supports scope reduction
+- Built-in retention policies align with requirements
+
+IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE:
+- Phase 1 (Months 1-2): Core deployment and log source integration
+- Phase 2 (Months 3-4): Compliance dashboard and reporting setup
+- Phase 3 (Months 5-6): Advanced threat detection and response automation
+
+GAP CONSIDERATIONS:
+- Ensure cardholder data environment (CDE) log segregation
+- Configure specific PCI-DSS compliance reports
+- Establish incident response playbooks
+```
+
+### 4. Risk-Based Threat Assessment
+
+**Pattern**: Get safeguard data → Consider threat landscape → Assess defensive capability
+
+```bash
+claude-code "Get details for safeguards 13.1, 13.3, and 13.6. Our financial services organization faces advanced persistent threats (APTs) and ransomware. 
+
+Analyze CrowdStrike Falcon's network monitoring capability: 'Cloud-native endpoint detection, behavioral analytics, threat intelligence integration, automated response, and real-time network visibility.'
+
+Prioritize safeguards by threat mitigation effectiveness."
+```
+
+**Expected LLM Analysis**:
+```
+THREAT-FOCUSED ANALYSIS: CrowdStrike Falcon vs Network Monitoring Safeguards
+
+THREAT CONTEXT: Financial Services + APTs + Ransomware
+
+SAFEGUARD PRIORITY RANKING:
+
+1. 🚨 SAFEGUARD 13.1 (CRITICAL - FULL + VALIDATES)
+   Network Boundary Monitoring
+   - Real-time visibility detects lateral movement
+   - Critical for APT detection and containment
+   - Threat Score: 95% (Highest priority for APTs)
+
+2. 🔍 SAFEGUARD 13.3 (HIGH - FULL + VALIDATES)  
+   Network Traffic Flow Monitoring
+   - Behavioral analytics identify anomalous patterns
+   - Essential for ransomware early detection
+   - Threat Score: 88% (High priority for data exfiltration)
+
+3. 🛡️ SAFEGUARD 13.6 (MEDIUM - PARTIAL + FACILITATES)
+   Deny Network Communications
+   - Automated response supports blocking
+   - Limited without network infrastructure integration
+   - Threat Score: 72% (Effective but requires orchestration)
+
+APT MITIGATION STRENGTHS:
+- Cloud-native architecture resists tampering
+- Behavioral analytics detect living-off-the-land techniques
+- Threat intelligence provides IOC correlation
+- Automated response reduces dwell time
+
+RANSOMWARE PROTECTION:
+- Early detection of encryption activities
+- Network segmentation enforcement support
+- Rapid containment and isolation capabilities
+
+RECOMMENDATION:
+Primary strength in 13.1 and 13.3 for threat detection. Supplement 13.6 with network access control integration for complete coverage.
+```
+
+### 5. Technology Stack Integration Assessment
+
+**Pattern**: Get safeguard data → Consider existing technology → Assess integration potential
+
+```bash
+claude-code "Get safeguard 16.1 details. Our development team uses:
+- Azure DevOps for CI/CD
+- GitHub for source control  
+- Docker containers
+- Kubernetes orchestration
+
+Analyze SonarQube's secure development capability: 'Static application security testing, code quality analysis, DevOps integration, policy enforcement, and security reporting.'
+
+Recommend integration approach and configuration."
+```
+
+**Expected LLM Analysis**:
+```
+DEVOPS INTEGRATION ANALYSIS: SonarQube vs Safeguard 16.1
+
+CAPABILITY: FULL + GOVERNANCE + VALIDATES
+INTEGRATION FIT: 92% (Excellent)
+
+TECHNOLOGY STACK ALIGNMENT:
+
+✅ AZURE DEVOPS INTEGRATION
+- Native YAML pipeline support
+- Quality gates and build blocking
+- Automated policy enforcement
+- Pull request decoration
+
+✅ GITHUB INTEGRATION  
+- GitHub Actions compatibility
+- PR checks and status updates
+- Branch protection policy support
+- Security advisory correlation
+
+✅ CONTAINER/K8S SUPPORT
+- Docker image scanning capabilities
+- Kubernetes manifest analysis
+- Infrastructure-as-Code security
+- Container registry integration
+
+IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH:
+
+Phase 1: Core Integration (Weeks 1-2)
+```yaml
+# Azure DevOps Pipeline Integration
+- task: SonarQubePrepare@4
+  inputs:
+    SonarQube: 'SonarQube-Connection'
+    scannerMode: 'MSBuild'
+    projectKey: 'MyProject'
+    
+- task: SonarQubeAnalyze@4
+
+- task: SonarQubePublish@4
+  inputs:
+    pollingTimeoutSec: '300'
+```
+
+Phase 2: Quality Gates (Weeks 3-4)
+- Configure quality profiles for your tech stack
+- Set up security-focused quality gates
+- Implement branch protection policies
+- Enable automated PR blocking
+
+Phase 3: Advanced Security (Weeks 5-6)
+- Security hotspot review workflows
+- SAST integration with SIEM/SOAR
+- Compliance reporting automation
+- Developer security training integration
+
+CONFIGURATION RECOMMENDATIONS:
+- Enable security-focused quality profiles
+- Configure OWASP Top 10 rule sets
+- Implement mandatory security reviews
+- Set up vulnerability tracking integration
+```
+
+## 🔄 Dynamic Analysis Patterns
+
+### 6. Gap Analysis and Roadmap Planning
+
+**Pattern**: Get multiple safeguard data → Assess current coverage → Plan implementation roadmap
+
+```bash
+claude-code "Get details for safeguards 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 (all account management safeguards). 
+
+Our current IAM stack:
+- Azure AD for authentication
+- Basic user provisioning  
+- Manual quarterly reviews
+- No privileged account management
+
+Analyze gaps against CIS requirements and create 12-month implementation roadmap."
+```
+
+**Expected LLM Analysis**:
+```
+IAM GAP ANALYSIS & ROADMAP: Current State vs CIS Account Management (5.1-5.4)
+
+CURRENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT:
+
+✅ 5.1 (Account Inventory) - PARTIAL
+- Azure AD provides user directory
+- Missing automated inventory processes
+- Gap: Real-time account tracking
+
+❌ 5.2 (Automated Provisioning) - MINIMAL  
+- Basic provisioning only
+- Manual deprovisioning processes
+- Gap: Lifecycle automation
+
+❌ 5.3 (Privileged Account Management) - MISSING
+- No PAM solution in place
+- Shared admin accounts
+- Gap: Complete privileged access control
+
+🔍 5.4 (Account Access Review) - PARTIAL
+- Quarterly manual reviews
+- No automated workflows
+- Gap: Continuous monitoring and automation
+
+12-MONTH IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP:
+
+QUARTER 1 (Months 1-3): Foundation
+- Deploy Azure AD Premium (automated provisioning)
+- Implement automated user lifecycle management
+- Establish privileged account inventory
+- Target: 5.1 → FULL, 5.2 → PARTIAL
+
+QUARTER 2 (Months 4-6): Privileged Access  
+- Deploy CyberArk or Azure PIM
+- Migrate shared accounts to PAM
+- Implement just-in-time access
+- Target: 5.3 → FULL
+
+QUARTER 3 (Months 7-9): Review Automation
+- Deploy access review automation
+- Implement risk-based reviews
+- Set up compliance reporting
+- Target: 5.4 → FULL
+
+QUARTER 4 (Months 10-12): Optimization
+- Fine-tune automated processes
+- Implement advanced analytics
+- Establish continuous monitoring
+- Target: All safeguards → FULL + VALIDATES
+
+BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
+- Azure AD Premium: $6/user/month
+- PAM solution: $30-50/privileged user/month  
+- Implementation services: $150K-200K
+- Training and change management: $50K
+
+SUCCESS METRICS:
+- Time to provision/deprovision: <4 hours
+- Privileged access review frequency: Weekly
+- Account accuracy: >99%
+- Compliance audit score: >95%
+```
+
+### 7. Custom Assessment Methodology
+
+**Pattern**: Define custom criteria → Get safeguard data → Apply methodology → Assess vendor
+
+```bash
+claude-code "Get safeguard 12.4 details. Using a 'Zero Trust Network Architecture' assessment methodology, analyze Palo Alto Prisma:
+
+'Next-generation firewall, cloud security, advanced threat detection, micro-segmentation, identity-based policies.'
+
+Assessment criteria:
+1. Identity verification (40% weight)
+2. Device verification (25% weight)  
+3. Network micro-segmentation (25% weight)
+4. Continuous monitoring (10% weight)
+
+Provide weighted scoring and Zero Trust alignment assessment."
+```
+
+**Expected LLM Analysis**:
+```
+ZERO TRUST ASSESSMENT: Palo Alto Prisma vs Safeguard 12.4
+
+ZERO TRUST METHODOLOGY SCORING:
+
+1. IDENTITY VERIFICATION (40% weight) - Score: 85/100
+   ✅ Identity-based policy enforcement
+   ✅ User and device context awareness
+   ⚠️ Limited behavioral analytics (compared to dedicated UEBA)
+   Weighted Score: 34/40
+
+2. DEVICE VERIFICATION (25% weight) - Score: 90/100
+   ✅ Advanced device fingerprinting
+   ✅ Continuous device trust assessment
+   ✅ Integration with endpoint protection
+   Weighted Score: 22.5/25
+
+3. NETWORK MICRO-SEGMENTATION (25% weight) - Score: 95/100
+   ✅ Application-level micro-segmentation
+   ✅ Dynamic policy enforcement
+   ✅ East-west traffic inspection
+   Weighted Score: 23.75/25
+
+4. CONTINUOUS MONITORING (10% weight) - Score: 88/100
+   ✅ Real-time threat detection
+   ✅ Automated response capabilities
+   ✅ Advanced analytics and ML
+   Weighted Score: 8.8/10
+
+OVERALL ZERO TRUST SCORE: 89.05/100
+
+ZERO TRUST ALIGNMENT ASSESSMENT:
+
+STRENGTHS:
+- Excellent micro-segmentation capabilities align with Zero Trust principles
+- Strong device verification and policy enforcement
+- Comprehensive east-west traffic visibility
+- Integration with cloud and on-premises environments
+
+AREAS FOR ENHANCEMENT:
+- Identity verification could benefit from UEBA integration
+- Consider supplementing with dedicated identity analytics
+- Enhance behavioral-based risk scoring
+
+SAFEGUARD 12.4 MAPPING:
+- CAPABILITY: FULL + VALIDATES
+- Zero Trust Readiness: EXCELLENT (89%)
+- Implementation Complexity: MEDIUM-HIGH
+
+RECOMMENDATION:
+Strong foundation for Zero Trust network architecture. Supplement with identity analytics platform for comprehensive Zero Trust implementation.
+```
+
+## 🎓 Educational Analysis Patterns
+
+### 8. Learning-Focused Assessment
+
+**Pattern**: Get safeguard data → Explain requirements → Demonstrate analysis thinking
+
+```bash
+claude-code "Get safeguard 11.1 details and explain each element in detail. Then analyze Acronis Cyber Backup:
+
+'Automated backup scheduling, versioning, encryption, cloud replication, recovery testing, and compliance reporting.'
+
+Walk through your analysis process step-by-step to demonstrate how to assess vendor capabilities against CIS requirements."
+```
+
+**Expected Educational LLM Analysis**:
+```
+EDUCATIONAL ANALYSIS: Understanding CIS Safeguard 11.1 Assessment
+
+STEP 1: UNDERSTANDING THE SAFEGUARD
+Safeguard 11.1: "Establish and Maintain a Data Recovery Process"
+
+CORE REQUIREMENTS (What MUST be done):
+- Automated backup processes
+- Regular backup verification  
+- Recovery procedures documentation
+- Testing of recovery capabilities
+
+SUB-ELEMENTS (Detailed components):
+- Backup scheduling and automation
+- Data encryption and protection
+- Off-site storage and replication
+- Recovery time/point objectives
+- Documentation and procedures
+
+GOVERNANCE ELEMENTS (Policy/Process):
+- Backup policies and procedures
+- Recovery testing schedules
+- Compliance and audit requirements
+- Roles and responsibilities
+
+STEP 2: VENDOR RESPONSE ANALYSIS
+Acronis Cyber Backup Claims Analysis:
+
+✅ "Automated backup scheduling"
+→ Directly addresses core requirement for automation
+→ Evidence: Strong implementation language
+→ Assessment: FULL capability indicator
+
+✅ "Versioning"
+→ Addresses sub-element for point-in-time recovery
+→ Evidence: Technical capability mentioned
+→ Assessment: FULL capability support
+
+✅ "Encryption"  
+→ Addresses sub-element for data protection
+→ Evidence: Security capability present
+→ Assessment: FULL capability component
+
+✅ "Cloud replication"
+→ Addresses sub-element for off-site storage
+→ Evidence: Geographic separation capability
+→ Assessment: FULL capability element
+
+✅ "Recovery testing"
+→ Directly addresses core requirement for verification
+→ Evidence: Testing capability explicitly mentioned
+→ Assessment: VALIDATES capability (provides evidence)
+
+✅ "Compliance reporting"
+→ Addresses governance element for audit
+→ Evidence: Governance capability present
+→ Assessment: GOVERNANCE + VALIDATES capability
+
+STEP 3: CAPABILITY ROLE DETERMINATION
+
+Primary Analysis Questions:
+1. Does vendor directly implement the safeguard? → YES (automation, encryption, testing)
+2. Does vendor provide complete coverage? → YES (all core elements covered)
+3. Does vendor enhance governance? → YES (compliance reporting)
+4. Does vendor provide validation? → YES (testing and reporting)
+
+STEP 4: CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT
+
+Evidence Quality Evaluation:
+- Specificity: HIGH (technical details provided)
+- Coverage: COMPREHENSIVE (all elements addressed)  
+- Implementation Language: STRONG (direct capability claims)
+- Technical Depth: GOOD (encryption, automation, testing mentioned)
+
+Confidence Factors:
++ Comprehensive coverage of requirements ✅
++ Strong technical implementation language ✅
++ Explicit testing and validation capabilities ✅
++ Governance and compliance features ✅
+- Could use more detail on RTO/RPO objectives ⚠️
+
+FINAL ASSESSMENT:
+
+CAPABILITY ROLES: FULL + GOVERNANCE + VALIDATES
+CONFIDENCE: 87%
+
+REASONING:
+Acronis demonstrates strong alignment with all core requirements and sub-elements of safeguard 11.1. The solution provides direct implementation (FULL), governance capabilities through compliance reporting (GOVERNANCE), and validation through recovery testing and reporting (VALIDATES).
+
+LEARNING TAKEAWAY:
+Effective vendor assessment requires:
+1. Understanding each safeguard element
+2. Mapping vendor capabilities to specific requirements
+3. Evaluating evidence quality and specificity
+4. Considering governance and validation aspects
+5. Assigning confidence based on evidence strength
+```
+
+## 🔧 Implementation Best Practices
+
+### Pattern Selection Guidelines
+
+1. **Basic Assessment**: Single vendor, single safeguard
+2. **Comparative Analysis**: Multiple vendors, single safeguard  
+3. **Compliance Focus**: Single vendor, regulatory requirements
+4. **Risk-Based**: Single vendor, threat landscape consideration
+5. **Integration Assessment**: Single vendor, technology stack fit
+6. **Gap Analysis**: Current state vs multiple safeguards
+7. **Custom Methodology**: Specialized assessment criteria
+8. **Educational**: Learning-focused detailed analysis
+
+### Optimization Tips
+
+- **Be Specific**: Include organizational context, risk profile, and technical environment
+- **Request Structure**: Ask for confidence scores, reasoning, and recommendations
+- **Compare Options**: Use comparative analysis for vendor selection decisions
+- **Consider Integration**: Factor in existing technology stacks and processes
+- **Plan Implementation**: Request timelines, costs, and success metrics
+- **Learn Continuously**: Use educational patterns to build assessment expertise
+
+---
+
+**The Pure Data Provider architecture enables unlimited analysis creativity - these patterns are just the beginning of what's possible with authoritative CIS data and LLM intelligence.**

package/package.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "name": "framework-mcp",
-  "version": "1.3.7",
-  "description": "Dual-architecture server (MCP + HTTP API) for determining vendor tool capability roles against CIS Controls Framework. Supports Microsoft Copilot custom connectors and DigitalOcean App Services deployment.",
+  "version": "1.4.0",
+  "description": "Pure Data Provider architecture serving authentic CIS Controls Framework data via MCP and HTTP API. Empowers LLMs with authoritative safeguards data for analysis. Supports Microsoft Copilot custom connectors and DigitalOcean App Services deployment.",
   "main": "dist/interfaces/http/http-server.js",
   "type": "module",
   "scripts": {

package/scripts/validate-documentation.sh

@@ -115,14 +115,14 @@ VERSION_ISSUES=()
 
 for file in "${VERSION_FILES[@]}"; do
     if [ -f "$file" ]; then
-        if ! grep -q "1.3.7" "$file"; then
+        if ! grep -q "1.4.0" "$file"; then
             VERSION_ISSUES+=("$file")
         fi
     fi
 done
 
 if [ ${#VERSION_ISSUES[@]} -eq 0 ]; then
-    echo "✅ Version 1.3.7 consistent across all files"
+    echo "✅ Version 1.4.0 consistent across all files"
 else
     echo "❌ Version inconsistency in: ${VERSION_ISSUES[*]}"
 fi
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ echo "✅ HTTP Server: Working"
 echo "✅ All 4 API Endpoints: Functional"
 echo "✅ 153 CIS Safeguards: Available"
 echo "✅ Documentation: Consistent"
-echo "✅ Version 1.3.7: Aligned"
+echo "✅ Version 1.4.0: Aligned"
 echo "✅ Architecture: Clean (4 tools)"
 echo
-echo "🎉 Framework MCP v1.3.7 Ready for Release!"
+echo "🎉 Framework MCP v1.4.0 Ready for Release!"

package/src/index.ts

@@ -11,8 +11,7 @@ if (import.meta.url === `file://${process.argv[1]}`) {
 
 export { FrameworkMcpServer } from './interfaces/mcp/mcp-server.js';
 export { FrameworkHttpServer } from './interfaces/http/http-server.js';
-export { CapabilityAnalyzer } from './core/capability-analyzer.js';
 export { SafeguardManager } from './core/safeguard-manager.js';
 
-// Clean architecture - all safeguards data moved to SafeguardManager
+// Pure Data Provider architecture - authentic CIS Controls data via SafeguardManager