Eresus sast scanner

SAST Vulnerability Analysis

Purpose

Systematically analyze source code for security vulnerabilities using structured Source→Sink taint tracking, pattern matching, and vulnerability-class-specific detection heuristics. Produce actionable findings with severity ratings, affected code locations (file + line number), and remediation guidance.

Scope

This skill covers the following 34 vulnerability classes. Each has a dedicated vulnerability knowledge file loaded on demand:

Category	Vulnerabilities
Injection	SQL Injection, XSS, SSTI, NoSQL Injection, GraphQL Injection, XXE, RCE / Command Injection, Expression Language Injection
Access Control & Auth	IDOR, Privilege Escalation, Authentication/JWT, Default Credentials, Brute Force, Business Logic, HTTP Method Tampering, Verification Code Abuse, Session Fixation
Data Exposure & Crypto	Weak Crypto/Hash, Information Disclosure, Insecure Cookie, Trust Boundary
Server-Side	SSRF, Path Traversal/LFI/RFI, Insecure Deserialization, Arbitrary File Upload, JNDI Injection, Race Conditions
Protocol & Infrastructure	CSRF, Open Redirect, HTTP Request Smuggling/Desync, Denial of Service, CVE Patterns
Language/Platform	PHP Security, Mobile Security (Android/iOS)

---

Workflow

Step 1: Understand Scope

Determine:

• Target: single file, directory, API endpoint, module, or full repo
• Language(s) and framework(s) in use
• User's goal: quick scan, deep audit, specific vuln class, or full report

Step 2: Load Relevant Knowledge Files

Based on the code being reviewed, load the appropriate vulnerability knowledge files from references/:

references/sql_injection.md          — SQL / ORM injection
references/xss.md                    — Cross-site scripting
references/ssrf.md                   — Server-side request forgery
references/rce.md                    — Remote code execution
references/idor.md                   — Insecure direct object reference
references/authentication_jwt.md     — Auth flaws, JWT weaknesses
references/csrf.md                   — Cross-site request forgery
references/path_traversal_lfi_rfi.md — Path traversal, LFI/RFI
references/ssti.md                   — Server-side template injection
references/xxe.md                    — XML external entity
references/insecure_deserialization.md    — Insecure deserialization
references/arbitrary_file_upload.md      — Arbitrary file upload
references/privilege_escalation.md       — Privilege escalation
references/nosql_injection.md            — NoSQL injection
references/graphql_injection.md          — GraphQL injection
references/weak_crypto_hash.md           — Weak cryptography / hash
references/information_disclosure.md     — Information disclosure
references/insecure_cookie.md            — Insecure cookie attributes
references/open_redirect.md              — Open redirect
references/trust_boundary.md             — Trust boundary violations
references/race_conditions.md            — Race conditions / TOCTOU
references/brute_force.md                — Brute force / credential stuffing
references/default_credentials.md        — Default / hardcoded credentials
references/verification_code_abuse.md    — Verification code abuse
references/business_logic.md             — Business logic flaws
references/http_method_tamper.md         — HTTP method tampering
references/smuggling_desync.md           — HTTP request smuggling / desync
references/cve_patterns.md               — Known CVE patterns
references/expression_language_injection.md — Expression language injection (SpEL / OGNL)
references/jndi_injection.md             — JNDI injection (Log4Shell class)
references/denial_of_service.md          — Denial of service / resource exhaustion
references/php_security.md               — PHP-specific security issues
references/mobile_security.md            — Mobile security (Android / iOS)
references/session_fixation.md           — Session fixation

Loading strategy:

• For a targeted review (e.g., "check for SQL injection"), load only the relevant knowledge file(s).
• For a full audit, load all 34 coverage files and scan systematically.
• Always load knowledge files for the top OWASP risks even if not explicitly requested.

---

Step 3: Analyze Code — Source→Sink Taint Tracking

For each loaded vulnerability class, perform taint analysis:

1. Identify Sources — User-controlled input entry points:

   • HTTP params, headers, cookies, request body
   • File uploads
   • WebSocket messages
   • Environment variables
   • Database reads of user-supplied data, deserialized objects

2. Trace Data Flow — Follow the data through:

   • Variable assignments, function arguments, return values
   • Framework helpers, ORM calls, template rendering
   • Cross-module/service boundaries

3. Check Sinks — Dangerous operations receiving tainted data:

   • Query execution (SQL, NoSQL, LDAP, XPath)
   • Shell/OS command execution
   • File system operations
   • HTTP client calls
   • Template rendering / eval / expression parsing
   • Serialization/deserialization

4. Evaluate Sanitization — Between source and sink, look for:

   • Input validation (allowlist vs denylist)
   • Context-appropriate encoding/escaping
   • Parameterization (prepared statements)
   • Framework-native protections

5. Determine Preliminary Verdict:

   • VULN: Taint reaches sink with no effective sanitization
   • LIKELY VULN: Sanitization present but bypassable per reference heuristics
   • SAFE: Effective sanitization or no taint path

---

Step 4: Business Logic & Auth Analysis

Beyond taint tracking, check for:

• Missing authentication/authorization on sensitive endpoints
• Insecure state machine transitions
• Race conditions in concurrent operations
• Improper trust boundaries between components
• JWT algorithm confusion, token fixation, session issues
• Default/hardcoded credentials
• Enumeration via timing or response differences

---

Step 5: Judge — Validity Re-Verification

Before reporting, every preliminary finding (VULN or LIKELY VULN) must pass a Judge review. The Judge acts as an adversarial second opinion to eliminate false positives.

For each candidate finding, answer all of the following:

Reachability Check

• Is the source actually user-controlled, or is it internal/trusted data?
• Is the vulnerable code path reachable from an HTTP endpoint / entry point, or is it dead code / internal-only?
• Are there upstream guards (auth middleware, input filters) that block the path before it reaches the sink?

Sanitization Re-Evaluation

• Is there sanitization that was missed in Step 3? (Check parent functions, middleware, framework internals)
• Is the sanitization method sufficient for this specific sink and context?
• Does the framework provide implicit protection for this pattern?

Exploitability Check

• Can the tainted value actually reach the sink in a form that triggers the vulnerability?
• Is exploitation conditional on a specific environment, config, or privilege level?
• For logic bugs: is the business impact real, or hypothetical?
• Is the chosen tag the most precise valid label for this finding?

Judge Verdict

Verdict	Meaning	Action
CONFIRMED	All reachability/sanitization/exploitability checks pass	Include in report
LIKELY	Most checks pass; one uncertainty remains	Include in report, flag uncertainty
NEEDS CONTEXT	Cannot determine without runtime behavior / config / additional files	Note as "unverifiable without X"
FALSE POSITIVE	A check definitively fails	Drop silently

Only CONFIRMED and LIKELY findings are reported.

Judge Output Format (internal, before reporting)

Finding: VULN-NNN — <class>
Reachability:   PASS / FAIL / UNCERTAIN — <reason>
Sanitization:   PASS / FAIL / UNCERTAIN — <reason>
Exploitability: PASS / FAIL / UNCERTAIN — <reason>
Judge Verdict:  CONFIRMED / LIKELY / NEEDS CONTEXT / FALSE POSITIVE

False Positive Guardrails

• Do not emit default_credentials unless there is a reachable authentication path that accepts a hardcoded, documented, factory, or seeded credential pair.
• Do not emit weak_crypto_hash when the evidence only shows a vulnerable third-party component or a generic cryptography import. Require direct use of weak hashes, broken password storage, or unsafe signing.
• Tag clarification: weak_crypto_hash is the canonical tag for both weak cryptographic algorithms (DES, RC4, ECB mode) and weak hash functions (MD5, SHA-1 for passwords). Do not use weak_crypto as a separate tag unless the benchmark ground truth explicitly requires it; prefer weak_crypto_hash to avoid tag fragmentation.
• Do not emit generic rce when the code shows direct shell/process execution — prefer command_injection.
• Do not replace spel_injection with command_injection or rce when the exploit primitive is Spring EL expression parsing.
• Do not emit jndi_injection for component demos unless the JNDI sink itself is the primary exploit path.
• Do not emit broad tags (trust_boundary, authentication, privilege_escalation) when a narrower precise tag is supported (xff_spoofing, session_fixation, verification_code).
• Do not emit open_redirect for infrastructure/parser misconfiguration unless attacker-controlled redirect response is the primary exploit.
• Do not emit denial_of_service merely because a path lacks size/rate limits — require explicit evidence that resource exhaustion is the primary impact.
• Do not emit brute_force merely because a login endpoint lacks visible rate limiting — rate limiting may exist at infrastructure level. Require explicit evidence of unlimited attempt processing.
• Do not emit csrf for stateless APIs using Bearer-token-only authentication with SessionCreationPolicy.STATELESS.
• Do not emit insecure_deserialization when the same sink is already covered by component_vulnerability (e.g., Fastjson autoType) unless a separate deserialization path exists.
• Do not emit arbitrary_file_upload for profile/avatar image upload with type restrictions and non-webroot storage.
• Do not emit session_fixation when Spring Security default session management is active (migrateSession is the default).
• Do not emit information_disclosure for database credentials in application config files — these are deployment issues, not application-level disclosure.

---

Step 6: Report Findings

Severity Classification

Severity	Criteria
Critical	Direct RCE, authentication bypass, unauthenticated data exposure
High	SQLi, SSRF, IDOR with sensitive data, stored XSS, privilege escalation
Medium	Reflected XSS, CSRF, path traversal, insecure deserialization
Low	Information disclosure, open redirect, weak crypto, insecure cookie
Info	Missing security headers, verbose errors, defense-in-depth gaps

Finding Format

[SEVERITY] VULN-NNN — <Vulnerability Class>  [CONFIRMED | LIKELY]
File: <path>:<line_number>
Description: <one sentence — what the vulnerability is>
Impact: <what an attacker can achieve>
Evidence:
  <relevant code snippet>
Judge: <one sentence — why this passed re-verification>
Remediation: <specific fix — not generic advice>

For NEEDS CONTEXT findings:

[UNVERIFIABLE] VULN-NNN — <Vulnerability Class>
File: <path>:<line_number>
Blocked by: <what additional context is needed>

Report Structure

When producing a full report, write to sast_report.md (or user-specified path):

# SAST Security Report — <target>
Date: <date>
Analyzer: eresus-sast-scanner v1.3

## Executive Summary
<2-3 sentences: total findings by severity, most critical issue>

## Critical Findings
## High Findings
## Medium Findings
## Low Findings
## Informational
## Unverifiable Findings

## Remediation Priority
<ordered fix list>

---

Key Principles

• Evidence over assertion: always show the vulnerable code path, not just the pattern name
• Context matters: a finding is only valid if the sink is reachable with user-controlled data
• Avoid false positives: if sanitization exists, verify it is bypassable before marking VULN
• Be precise: include exact file paths and line numbers — never approximate
• Fix > flag: always provide a concrete remediation, not just a problem statement
• Language-aware: adapt sink/source patterns to the specific language and framework in use