Threat Modeling

Threat Modeling

Produce a threat model for a user-described system using STRIDE-per-element on a data flow diagram.

Workflow

Deliver in phases, presenting each for user review before proceeding. For "quick" or "draft" requests, produce the full document in one pass.

Phase 1: Scope and system model

1. Gather from the user: system purpose, components, data flows, actors, deployment context.
2. Ask about:
   • Trust boundaries (where privilege, network, or ownership changes)
   • Data classifications (PII, secrets, financial, health, IP)
   • Threat actors (external attacker, insider, automated, nation-state)
3. Draw a Level-1 DFD in ASCII art showing processes (⬭), data stores (▭▭), external entities (⬜), data flows (→), and trust boundaries (┄┄┄).
4. List assets with Confidentiality / Integrity / Availability ratings.

Present the DFD and asset list. Ask the user to confirm or correct before proceeding.

Trust boundaries to check:

• Internet ↔ DMZ / edge
• App tier ↔ data tier
• Authenticated ↔ admin scope
• Your org ↔ vendor / 3rd-party API
• Tenant A ↔ Tenant B (multi-tenant)
• Host ↔ container / serverless
• LLM system prompt ↔ untrusted user or tool input

For DFD construction details, see references/01-foundations-and-system-modeling.md.

Phase 2: Identify threats

Apply STRIDE-per-element, starting at trust boundary crossings.

* Only if the store serves as an audit log.

For each element or flow crossing a trust boundary:

1. Walk S-T-R-I-D-E. Ask: "How could this happen here?"
2. Record each credible threat as: asset, adversary, method, consequence.
3. Consider chained threats — an I enabling an E enabling a T.

Present the threat list. Ask the user to confirm before proceeding.

Example threat row (data flow: User → Web Frontend over HTTPS):

Does this system include AI, LLM, or agentic components? If yes, read references/05-ai-and-agentic-threats.md and apply its additional threat categories.

For STRIDE session details and pitfalls, see references/02-methodologies-and-stride.md.

Phase 3: Score and prioritize

For each threat, assign disposition:

For alternative scoring schemes (CVSS, OWASP Risk Rating), see references/03-risk-scoring-and-mitigations.md.

Phase 4: Define mitigations

For each threat not accepted or transferred, define a mitigation that is concrete (specific control, not "improve security"), testable, layered (multiple controls for Critical/High), and owned.

Present mitigations. Ask the user to confirm before producing the final document.

For mitigation catalogs and MITRE ATT&CK/D3FEND integration, see references/03-risk-scoring-and-mitigations.md.

Phase 5: Produce the threat model document

Assemble the final document using this template:

# Threat Model: <System Name>

## Metadata
- **Owner(s):**
- **Last reviewed:** YYYY-MM-DD
- **Next review due:** YYYY-MM-DD

## System Description
<1–3 paragraphs: what the system does, who uses it.>

## Scope
- **In scope:**
- **Out of scope:**
- **Assumptions:**

## Assets
| Asset | Description | C | I | A | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## Actors
| Actor | Legitimate? | Motivation | Capability |
|---|---|---|---|

## Data Flow Diagram
<ASCII DFD with trust boundaries marked.>

## Trust Boundaries
| Boundary | Separates | Controls |
|---|---|---|

## Threats
| ID | STRIDE | Element/Flow | Threat | L | I | E | Score | Tier | Mitigation | Owner | Status |
|----|--------|--------------|--------|---|---|---|-------|------|-----------|-------|--------|

## Accepted Risks
| ID | Description | Rationale | Owner | Review Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|

## Open Questions
-

## Change Log
- YYYY-MM-DD: Initial threat model

Edge cases

• Very large system: Focus the first pass on the highest-risk trust boundary crossings. Expand iteratively.
• AI/LLM/agentic system: Read references/05-ai-and-agentic-threats.md and add AI-specific threat categories.
• Privacy-sensitive system (GDPR/CCPA/HIPAA): Apply LINDDUN categories alongside STRIDE. See references/02-methodologies-and-stride.md.
• User requests a different methodology: Consult the decision matrix in references/02-methodologies-and-stride.md.
• User wants CI/CD integration: See references/04-devsecops-and-cloud-native.md.
• Cloud-native or microservices system: See references/04-devsecops-and-cloud-native.md for additional trust boundaries and threat classes.

Reference material

Load on demand for deeper guidance:

• Foundations & system modeling: references/01-foundations-and-system-modeling.md — DFD construction, trust boundary patterns, asset inventory, the four-question framework, when to threat model
• Methodologies & STRIDE: references/02-methodologies-and-stride.md — methodology decision matrix, STRIDE-per-element details, PASTA, LINDDUN, attack trees, other methodologies
• Risk scoring & mitigations: references/03-risk-scoring-and-mitigations.md — DREAD, CVSS, OWASP risk rating, mitigation catalogs, MITRE ATT&CK/D3FEND integration
• DevSecOps & cloud-native: references/04-devsecops-and-cloud-native.md — threat modeling as code (pytm), CI/CD integration, cloud-specific threats
• AI & agentic threats: references/05-ai-and-agentic-threats.md — MAESTRO framework, OWASP LLM Top 10, AI-specific mitigations
• Worked example & templates: references/06-worked-example-and-templates.md — CommentHub end-to-end example, elicitation checklists, validation checklist
• Anti-patterns, tooling & maturity: references/07-anti-patterns-tooling-and-maturity.md — common pitfalls, tool landscape, program metrics