Perseus:report

Perseus Report (Phase 4)

Context & Authorization

IMPORTANT: This skill generates a professional security report for the user's own codebase. The report is intended to help developers and stakeholders understand and remediate security issues in their own software.

Multi-Language Support

Report generation adapts remediation guidance based on detected language/framework:

Overview

This skill executes the Reporting Phase of the Perseus framework. It synthesizes findings from Scan, Audit, Exploit, and Specialist phases into a professional executive report.

Goal: Communicate verified risks effectively to stakeholders and drive remediation.

Methodology:

1. Collect: Gather all deliverables from previous phases.
2. Verify: Prioritize verified exploits over theoretical risks.
3. Contextualize: Explain business impact, not just technical flaws.
4. Remediate: Provide language-specific, actionable fixes for each finding.

Execution Instructions

Step 1: Collect All Deliverables

Read all files in deliverables/:

Core Phase Deliverables:

• engagement_profile.md (Mode, scope, constraints)
• code_analysis_deliverable.md (Scan)
• All *_analysis.md files (Audit)
• exploitation_report.md (Exploit)
• verification_scope.md (Verification limits and approved window)

Specialist Deliverables (if present):

• api_security_analysis.md (API + GraphQL + WebSocket + OAuth)
• injection_deep_analysis.md (NoSQL + SSTI + Log4j)
• crypto_security_analysis.md (JWT + Hashing + Encryption)
• supply_chain_analysis.md (CVEs + Typosquatting)
• file_security_analysis.md (Path Traversal + XXE + Zip Slip)
• business_logic_analysis.md (Race Conditions + AI Security)
• client_side_analysis.md (React/Vue/Angular + SSR)
• config_security_analysis.md (Docker + CI/CD + Cloud + K8s)

Step 2: Calculate Risk Metrics

Severity Scoring (CVSS-inspired):

Exploitability Factor:

• VERIFIED: Multiply by 1.0 (confirmed exploitable)
• POTENTIAL: Multiply by 0.7 (likely exploitable)
• THEORETICAL: Multiply by 0.4 (needs specific conditions)

Confidence Factor:

• High: Multiply by 1.0
• Medium: Multiply by 0.75
• Low: Multiply by 0.5

Verification Context Factor:

• VERIFIED in PRODUCTION_SAFE: Multiply by 1.0
• VERIFIED in STAGING_ACTIVE: Multiply by 0.9
• VERIFIED in LAB_FULL: Multiply by 0.85
• VERIFIED in LAB_RED_TEAM: Multiply by 0.8
• POTENTIAL-PROD-BLOCKED: Multiply by 0.7

Step 3: Generate Report

Create deliverables/SECURITY_REPORT.md using this structure:

# Security Assessment Report

**Project:** [Project Name]
**Assessment Date:** [Date]
**Methodology:** Perseus Security Framework v2.0
**Scope:** [Repository/Application name]
**Engagement Mode:** [PRODUCTION_SAFE/STAGING_ACTIVE/LAB_FULL/LAB_RED_TEAM]

---

## Executive Summary

### Assessment Status
[Complete/Partial] - [X] phases completed, [Y] specialists run

### Technologies Analyzed
| Category | Detected |
|----------|----------|
| Language | [e.g., TypeScript, Go, Python] |
| Framework | [e.g., Next.js 14, Gin, FastAPI] |
| Database | [e.g., PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Redis] |
| Infrastructure | [e.g., Docker, Kubernetes, AWS] |
| CI/CD | [e.g., GitHub Actions, GitLab CI] |
| AI/LLM | [e.g., OpenAI, Anthropic, LangChain] |

### Risk Overview
| Severity | Verified | Potential | Total |
|----------|----------|-----------|-------|
| Critical | X | Y | Z |
| High | X | Y | Z |
| Medium | X | Y | Z |
| Low | X | Y | Z |

### Verification Coverage
| Category | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Verified | X |
| Failed Verification | Y |
| Potential (Prod Blocked) | Z |
| Aborted (Safety Kill-Switch) | W |

### Key Findings
1. **[Most Critical Finding]** - Brief description and impact
2. **[Second Critical Finding]** - Brief description and impact
3. **[Third Critical Finding]** - Brief description and impact

### Business Impact
- **Data Breach Risk:** [High/Medium/Low] - [Explanation]
- **Service Disruption:** [High/Medium/Low] - [Explanation]
- **Compliance Impact:** [Regulations affected: GDPR, PCI-DSS, HIPAA, SOC2, etc.]
- **Reputation Risk:** [High/Medium/Low] - [Explanation]

### Top 3 Recommendations
1. [Highest priority fix]
2. [Second priority fix]
3. [Third priority fix]

---

## Attack Surface Summary

### Technology Stack
- **Language:** [e.g., TypeScript]
- **Framework:** [e.g., Next.js 14 (App Router)]
- **Database:** [e.g., MongoDB, PostgreSQL]
- **Authentication:** [e.g., JWT, NextAuth, OAuth]
- **Infrastructure:** [e.g., Docker, Kubernetes, Vercel]

### Entry Points Analyzed
| Type | Count | Critical Paths |
|------|-------|----------------|
| API Endpoints | X | `/api/auth/*`, `/api/admin/*` |
| GraphQL | X | `mutation { ... }` |
| WebSocket | X | `/ws/chat` |
| File Upload | X | `/upload` |
| Server Actions | X | `app/actions/*` |

### Dependencies
- **Total Packages:** X
- **With Known CVEs:** Y
- **Critical CVEs:** Z (list package names)

### Infrastructure
- **Docker Images:** X
- **CI/CD Pipelines:** Y
- **Cloud Resources:** Z

---

## Critical Findings (Verified Exploits)

> Only findings verified in the Exploit Phase appear here.

### CRITICAL-001: [Title]

**Severity:** Critical (9.5)
**Status:** VERIFIED EXPLOITABLE
**Category:** [Injection/Auth/Config/AI/etc.]
**Language:** [Node.js/Go/Python/etc.]

#### Description
[Clear explanation of the vulnerability]

#### Location
- **File:** `path/to/file.js`
- **Line:** 42-48
- **Endpoint:** `POST /api/vulnerable`

#### Proof of Concept

[Minimal reproduction steps or payload]

#### Evidence
[Screenshot, response, or output proving exploitation]

#### Impact
- [Specific impact: data access, RCE, etc.]
- [Business impact: what could attacker do?]

#### Remediation
```javascript
// Vulnerable code
[code snippet]

// Fixed code (language-specific)
[code snippet]

References

• [OWASP Link]
• [CWE Link]

CRITICAL-002: ...

Infrastructure Security Findings

Findings from Docker, CI/CD, Cloud, and Kubernetes analysis.

Docker Security

CI/CD Security

Cloud Security

Kubernetes Security

AI/LLM Security Findings

Findings from AI security analysis (if applicable).

AI Security Status

AI-VULN-001: [Title]

Type: [Prompt Injection/Data Leakage/Tool Abuse] ...

High Severity Findings

HIGH-001: ...

Medium Severity Findings

MEDIUM-001: ...

Low Severity Findings

LOW-001: ...

Potential Vulnerabilities (Unverified)

Findings from Audit that could not be verified but remain risky.

POTENTIAL-001: [Title]

Severity: [Estimated] Reason Not Verified: [Why exploitation wasn't confirmed] Mode Constraint: [Why blocked in current mode] Recommendation: [What to do about it]

Supply Chain Summary

Vulnerability Overview

License Issues

Outdated Dependencies

Secure Components

Components analyzed and found to be properly secured.

Strategic Recommendations

Immediate Actions (0-7 days)

1. [Critical fix 1] - [Language-specific guidance]
2. [Critical fix 2] - [Language-specific guidance]

Short-term (1-4 weeks)

1. [High priority improvements]
2. [Security configuration changes]
3. [Dependency updates]

Long-term (1-3 months)

1. [Architectural improvements]
2. [Security tooling implementation]
3. [Training recommendations]

Infrastructure Hardening

1. Docker: [Specific recommendations]
2. CI/CD: [Specific recommendations]
3. Cloud: [Specific recommendations]
4. Kubernetes: [Specific recommendations]

Defense-in-Depth Suggestions

1. Input Validation: Implement schema validation (Zod, Joi, Pydantic)
2. Output Encoding: Use context-aware encoding
3. Security Headers: Implement CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options
4. Monitoring: Add security logging and alerting
5. Dependencies: Implement automated vulnerability scanning in CI/CD
6. AI Security: Implement prompt injection detection and output filtering

Appendix

A. Tools Used

• Perseus Security Framework v2.0
• Static Analysis: Code pattern matching, AST analysis
• Dynamic Testing: Safe payload verification

B. Languages & Frameworks Analyzed

• [List all detected with versions]

C. Scope Exclusions

• [What was not tested and why]

D. Glossary

• SQLi: SQL Injection
• XSS: Cross-Site Scripting
• SSRF: Server-Side Request Forgery
• SSTI: Server-Side Template Injection
• XXE: XML External Entity
• IDOR: Insecure Direct Object Reference
• BOLA: Broken Object Level Authorization
• RCE: Remote Code Execution

## Tone & Style

*   **Professional:** Objective and factual. No hyperbole or fear-mongering.
*   **Actionable:** Every finding has a language-specific remediation.
*   **Developer-Focused:** Code examples for fixes in the detected language.
*   **Business-Aware:** Explain impact in business terms, not just technical.
*   **Infrastructure-Aware:** Include Docker, CI/CD, Cloud, K8s findings.

## Quality Checklist

Before finalizing the report, verify:
- [ ] All verified exploits are documented with evidence
- [ ] All findings have language-specific remediation guidance
- [ ] Severity ratings are consistent
- [ ] Infrastructure findings are included (Docker, CI/CD, Cloud, K8s)
- [ ] AI/LLM findings are included (if applicable)
- [ ] Supply chain summary is complete
- [ ] No sensitive data (real credentials, PII) is included
- [ ] Report can be shared with stakeholders

**Assessment Complete.** Report saved to `deliverables/SECURITY_REPORT.md`.