# Security Advisory Fix > Design, implement, test, and ship the actual code fix for a security advisory that has already been verified as real (typically by security-advisory-triage) against this repo. Use this whenever the user asks to fix, patch, remediate, harden, or "build a comprehensive fix for" a confirmed vulnerability or GHSA, or says something like "now let's fix it" right after a triage/verification step. Don't wait for the user to ask for "the process" by name; if a vulnerability is confirmed and they want it shipped, this skill is almost certainly what they want. Companion to security-advisory-triage, which verifies and writes up the advisory; this one builds and ships the fix. - Skill: `fossbilling/security-advisory-fix` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add fossbilling/security-advisory-fix` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/fossbilling/security-advisory-fix/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Security - Author: fossbilling (https://skillmd.com/u/fossbilling) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/fossbilling/security-advisory-fix --- # Security advisory fix Companion to `security-advisory-triage`. That skill answers "is this real, and what does the advisory say?" This one starts once the answer is yes and covers everything from there through a merged, CI-green fix: designing the fix, implementing it, and getting it through review. Like triage, this is collaborative and staged, not something to run to completion and hand over at the end. The design stage in particular involves real judgment calls (how far to change existing behavior, whether a suggested response masks the bug or just the symptom), and those are worth putting in front of the user as they come up rather than deciding silently and revealing the decision only in the diff. ## Carry the disclosure caution forward If the advisory is still unpublished, the same rule from triage applies to everything you produce here, not just the write-up. No GHSA/CVE ID, and nothing specific enough to reconstruct the exploit, in branch names, commit messages, PR titles or bodies, or CI run titles. If the harness auto-named your branch after the advisory ID (this happens: a task prompt that mentions the GHSA ID can get echoed straight into an auto-generated branch name), rename it before your first commit, not after. Use a plain, symptom-based name instead, matching how this repo's own fix PRs are named (`fix/template-exists`, `fix/client-signup-enumeration`: what broke, not what the finding is called). ## Stage 1: Design the fix Resist writing code before this stage produces an actual decision. The temptation is strong, especially when the vulnerable lines are obvious, but "obvious lines" and "correct fix" are different problems. For anything beyond a one-line validation gap, there's real design space worth surfacing to the user rather than picking silently. ### If exploration contradicts the report, stop before designing anything Triage should have confirmed the report already, but exploring the actual code for a fix sometimes turns up a mismatch triage didn't catch: the described mechanism doesn't exist as written. Don't quietly retarget the fix at whatever you did find and carry on as if that's what was reported. Stop and put the discrepancy in front of the user: here's what the report claims, here's what the code actually does. Two shapes of mismatch are both common enough to expect, not just one: - **Something adjacent and real is there instead.** Say what it is, and let the user decide whether that's what you should fix, whether it's worth a separate report, or whether the original claim needs another look. - **Nothing is actually wrong.** The path the report describes is already correctly guarded, sometimes by a fix that landed for an unrelated reason. Trace and quote the exact guard so the user can verify your reading rather than just taking "looks fine" on faith, and treat closing the report as a real outcome, not a failure to find something. It's often still worth asking whether the gap is covered by a regression test, and adding one if not, so this stays provably true rather than just currently true. Silently substituting a different fix for a different bug, or silently closing a report as unfounded without showing your work, are both exactly the kind of decision this skill exists to make visible, not the kind to make on your own. ### Look for the pattern already in the codebase Before inventing a fix, check whether this exact class of problem was already solved somewhere else in the app. A codebase this size usually has prior art: a sibling endpoint that handles the same kind of sensitive comparison, timing concern, or disclosure risk correctly, even if the vulnerable code never got the same treatment. Grep for the mechanism, not just the symptom. If the bug is a timing-safe comparison gap, look for other places doing timing-safe comparisons; if it's an enumeration oracle, look for other endpoints that already had to solve enumeration. Reusing an established, already-reviewed pattern is almost always better than designing a new one from scratch, and it gives you a concrete thing to propose instead of an abstract description of what you're about to build. ### Lay out real options, then ask Once you understand the vulnerable mechanism and what prior art exists, identify the genuinely distinct strategies for fixing it. Not a strawman next to the obviously-correct answer, but options that trade real things against each other: how much existing behavior or API contract changes, how completely the underlying issue closes versus just becoming harder to exploit, how much UX or performance cost it adds. Recommend one, but put the real choice to the user with an explicit question (`AskUserQuestion` in Claude Code) rather than deciding and presenting the result as a fait accompli. This matters most exactly when the strongest fix would change public behavior other things might depend on. That's a call the user should get to make deliberately, with the tradeoff stated plainly, not discover after the fact in a diff. ### Check whether the fix closes the mechanism, or just the reported instance The first fix that comes to mind usually addresses exactly the instance the report pointed at, and it's worth asking whether that's the same thing as closing the underlying mechanism. The two come apart in different ways for different bug classes, so what to check depends on what kind of bug this is: - For a **disclosure/enumeration oracle**, the report usually names one channel (an error message, say). Walk through the others explicitly: does the response body still differ, does a returned value's type or shape leak something even once the message is gone (a real ID sitting next to a masked branch's placeholder is itself a signal), do HTTP status, headers, cookies/session state, or timing still diverge between the two cases. A fix that closes the loudest channel can leave a quieter one wide open, and because it's quieter it's easy to miss unless you look on purpose. - For a **validation/injection/traversal gap**, the report usually names one call site. Check whether the same unvalidated value reaches the same dangerous sink through any other path, and whether the fix belongs at the point of use (so every current and future caller is covered) rather than only in the one entry point that happened to get reported. - For a **broken access control / ownership-scoping gap** (one account reaching another's data by id), check every sibling endpoint that fetches the same kind of entity by id for the same ownership predicate, not just the reported one. This is a common enough bug class in this app's history to expect it by default, not just when a report happens to name it. - For other bug classes, ask the equivalent question in whatever terms actually apply: what would still let the underlying issue happen even after this specific report's reproduction case stops working? This still applies even when Stage 1 concluded there's no code fix to write, only a regression test to add (see above): ask the same question about the test instead. Does it actually prove the general protection holds, or only that this one reported case happens to pass? If you find something the obvious fix doesn't cover, treat it as its own decision. Surface it and ask, same as the primary strategy choice, rather than silently folding a second significant design change into the same commit as the first fix. ## Stage 2: Implement Once the design is settled: 1. **Write the fix**, reusing whatever established pattern Stage 1 found where possible instead of a bespoke implementation. 2. **Find every consumer of anything you changed the contract of.** If a return type, response shape, or error behavior changed, grep broadly for callers, not just obvious application code but every test framework this repo uses that might assert on the old contract. That can include PHP/Pest unit tests, PHP E2E tests that hit a live running instance, and Playwright specs, and they don't all share helper code, so a fix in one doesn't mean the equivalent fix landed in the others. Update each one you find. 3. **Write a regression test** for the vulnerability itself, not just for the refactor. 4. **Run the full local suite before ever pushing**: `composer test` (Unit + Modules), `composer phpstan`, and CS-Fixer. For CS-Fixer, pass `--config=.php-cs-fixer.dist.php` explicitly: `src/vendor/bin/php-cs-fixer fix --config=.php-cs-fixer.dist.php --dry-run --diff `. Without it, CS-Fixer tries to locate the project's config by walking up from a single given path, which is ambiguous once you pass more than one, so it refuses outright ("For multiple paths config parameter is required") rather than guessing which path's config to use. Passing `--config` explicitly sidesteps the ambiguity regardless of how many files follow. This catches most things, but know its ceiling going in: `composer test`'s default suites are Unit and Modules only, so it silently skips anything under `tests/E2E` or `src/modules/*/tests/E2E`, which is exactly where a vulnerability regression test for something network- or live-instance-shaped is likely to live. Those need `APP_URL`/`TEST_API_KEY` (Playwright specs need `PLAYWRIGHT_BASE_URL`, `ADMIN_EMAIL`, `ADMIN_PASSWORD`) or a live instance to run at all, and network-timing dependent behavior (rate limits under real request latency, for example) plain doesn't reproduce in a unit test's mocked DI container no matter how it's stubbed. If your environment actually has those available, run the E2E suite too before pushing (`composer test -- --testsuite E2E`, `npm run pw:run`), not just the default suites; if it doesn't, that's fine, but know that a regression in that territory won't surface until CI actually runs it, so don't be surprised by it later. All of the above is PHP-side. If the fix (or its regression test) touches browser/theme code instead, run the frontend equivalent too: `npm run test:js` for the JS unit suite and `npm run build` (which type-checks via `tsc` as part of running) so a broken build doesn't ship alongside a passing PHP suite. ## Stage 3: Open the PR and handle review Open the PR with the same plain, symptom-based naming as the branch. No advisory ID anywhere in the title or body either, even once the fix is written and the temptation is to just describe what was actually wrong. Naming carefully doesn't make this disclosure-free: the diff itself, whatever it's titled, is now visible to anyone with read access to the repo, before the advisory is published. This project's accepted practice is to ship the fix that way anyway (a working patch reaching anyone tracking `main` immediately outweighs holding it back for a slower private-disclosure process), and to hold the advisory's own *publication* for a window afterward instead, separately (see Stage 4). That's a real, deliberate tradeoff, not an oversight, so don't second-guess it by default. But it's a tradeoff made for this project's normal case, not a universal constant. If something about this specific advisory argues for more caution than usual (an unusually severe impact, a likely well-resourced attacker actively watching the repo), or if you're applying this skill somewhere that hasn't made this same call, confirm with the user before pushing anything rather than assuming the general practice applies unconditionally. ### Responding to CI and review comments Verify every finding against the code as it currently stands before acting on it. This is the single highest-value habit in this whole loop. Two failure modes show up constantly, and both look identical to a real, actionable finding at a glance: - **Stale findings.** A review can run against a commit you've since superseded. Check the finding's `original_commit_id`/timestamp against what's actually on the branch now before assuming it's still true. If a later commit already fixed it, say so in the reply instead of re-doing the work or, worse, reverting a correct fix back to the flagged state. - **Wrong findings.** A suggestion can be plausible-sounding and still be incorrect, including, notably, a suggestion that would silently reopen the exact vulnerability this whole skill exists to close ("just return the real ID here for compatibility," say, when the whole point of the fix was that the ID was a side channel). When that happens, don't comply to be agreeable. Reply with the concrete reason it's wrong and leave the code as it is. When CI itself fails, read the actual failure log, not just the check name. The real cause is often several layers removed from the symptom, and the first plausible-looking cause isn't always the right one. Before reaching for a fix, ask whether the thing you're trying to preserve is even used by anything; the simplest correct fix for a broken test fixture is sometimes to stop trying to recover a value nothing downstream actually reads, not to route around whatever broke while getting it. Reply to and resolve each review thread you actually acted on (including an "already fixed, here's why" reply for stale ones). Skip threads you didn't act on rather than resolving them as a formality. A CI-green PR with every review thread resolved is not the same thing as a mergeable PR. `CONTRIBUTING.md` requires two maintainer reviews before anything merges, a real approval gate separate from CI and separate from automated review tools, and it's not this skill's place to merge around it even if the tooling you're working in happens to have the permission to. Get the fix and its tests in front of maintainers and leave the merge itself to them. ## Stage 4: After merge Confirm CI is actually green on the merge commit on the base branch, not just on the PR branch before merging. A squash-merge or a concurrent change to the base branch can still surface something new. Clean up the now-merged branch and worktree once confirmed. Publishing or updating the advisory itself (the patched-version field, whether and when it goes public) is always the maintainer's call, never something to do unprompted just because the fix shipped. Advisories are routinely held back deliberately for a while after the fix lands, to give users an update window before the vulnerability becomes public knowledge. Update your own notes to reflect that timing decision once the user states it, and don't revisit or nudge toward publishing until they raise it again.