Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索执行命令github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计异常

pentest-report渗透测试报告

Agent Skill

用于辅助测试设计、自动化测试、用例整理和回归验证。它适合让 Agent 编写单元测试、端到端测试、测试计划或根据失败日志定位问题。使用时需要确认项目测试框架、运行命令和夹具数据,避免为了通过测试而改坏真实逻辑;涉及浏览器或外部服务时,应区分本地模拟、测试环境和生产环境。

总安装

432

周安装

18

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

144
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:pentest-report(渗透测试报告)
来源仓库:https://github.com/aakash-dhar/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/pentest-report
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/aakash-dhar/claude-skills --skill pentest-report
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/aakash-dhar/claude-skills --skill pentest-report

简介

生成标准化渗透测试报告,含风险评级与补救时间表。

  • 覆盖 OWASP Top 10 与 ASVS 合规检查项。
  • 输出立即行动清单与重新测试建议。pentest-report 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。
  • 适用于内部安全评估与第三方审计材料准备。
  • 不替代专业红队服务,侧重漏洞梳理与文档整理。

SKILL.md

Penetration Testing Report Skill

When generating a penetration testing report, follow OWASP standards and methodology. This skill produces a professional-grade report suitable for compliance reviews, stakeholder communication, and remediation planning.

1. Scope & Methodology Discovery

Determine Scope

# Application type
cat package.json pyproject.toml Cargo.toml go.mod pom.xml composer.json Gemfile 2>/dev/null | head -30

# Detect web framework (determines attack surface)
cat package.json 2>/dev/null | grep -E "express|fastify|next|nuxt|nest|koa|hapi|django|flask|fastapi|rails|laravel|spring|gin|fiber|echo"

# Detect API type
grep -rn "app.get\|app.post\|@app.route\|@GetMapping\|router\." --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.java" src/ app/ 2>/dev/null | head -20

# Detect authentication mechanism
grep -rn "jwt\|passport\|oauth\|session\|cookie\|bearer\|auth" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.java" src/ app/ 2>/dev/null | head -20

# Detect database
grep -rn "postgres\|mysql\|mongo\|redis\|sqlite\|prisma\|sequelize\|typeorm\|mongoose\|sqlalchemy\|knex\|drizzle" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.java" src/ app/ 2>/dev/null | head -10

# Detect frontend
cat package.json 2>/dev/null | grep -E "react|vue|angular|svelte|next|nuxt"

# Map API endpoints (attack surface)
grep -rn "router\.\(get\|post\|put\|delete\|patch\)\|app\.\(get\|post\|put\|delete\|patch\)\|@app\.route\|@GetMapping\|@PostMapping\|@PutMapping\|@DeleteMapping" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.java" src/ app/ 2>/dev/null

# Count total endpoints
grep -rn "router\.\(get\|post\|put\|delete\|patch\)\|app\.\(get\|post\|put\|delete\|patch\)" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ app/ 2>/dev/null | wc -l

# Infrastructure
ls Dockerfile docker-compose.yml docker-compose.yaml k8s/ terraform/ nginx.conf 2>/dev/null

Testing Methodology

This report follows:

  • OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (WSTG) v4.2 — structured testing methodology
  • OWASP Top 10 (2021) — most critical web application security risks
  • OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS) v4.0 — detailed security requirements
  • CVSS v3.1 — Common Vulnerability Scoring System for severity rating

2. OWASP Top 10 (2021) Assessment

Test each category systematically:

A01:2021 — Broken Access Control

WSTG Tests:

  • WSTG-ATHZ-01: Testing Directory Traversal/File Include
  • WSTG-ATHZ-02: Testing for Bypassing Authorization Schema
  • WSTG-ATHZ-03: Testing for Privilege Escalation
  • WSTG-ATHZ-04: Testing for Insecure Direct Object References (IDOR)
# Check for missing authorization middleware
grep -rn "router\.\(get\|post\|put\|delete\|patch\)" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" src/api/ src/routes/ 2>/dev/null | grep -v "auth\|middleware\|protect\|guard\|verify"

# Check for IDOR vulnerabilities — direct ID usage without ownership check
grep -rn "req\.params\.id\|req\.params\.userId\|request\.args\.get.*id" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Check for path traversal
grep -rn "req\.params\|req\.query\|request\.args" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null | grep -i "file\|path\|dir\|upload\|download"

# Check for missing role-based access control
grep -rn "role\|permission\|isAdmin\|hasRole\|authorize\|can(" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Check for CORS misconfiguration
grep -rn "Access-Control-Allow-Origin\|cors(" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Check for missing CSRF protection
grep -rn "csrf\|csrfToken\|_token\|antiforgery" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.html" src/ 2>/dev/null

What to flag:

  • Endpoints accessible without authentication
  • Missing ownership verification on resource access (IDOR)
  • Horizontal privilege escalation (user A accessing user B's data)
  • Vertical privilege escalation (regular user accessing admin functions)
  • CORS with wildcard origin on authenticated endpoints
  • Missing CSRF tokens on state-changing operations
  • Directory traversal in file operations
  • Missing rate limiting on sensitive endpoints

A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures

WSTG Tests:

  • WSTG-CRYP-01: Testing for Weak Transport Layer Security
  • WSTG-CRYP-02: Testing for Padding Oracle
  • WSTG-CRYP-03: Testing for Sensitive Information via Unencrypted Channels
  • WSTG-CRYP-04: Testing for Weak Encryption
# Check for weak hashing algorithms
grep -rn "md5\|sha1\|SHA1\|MD5" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.java" src/ 2>/dev/null | grep -v "node_modules\|test\|spec"

# Check for weak encryption
grep -rn "DES\|RC4\|ECB\|Blowfish" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.java" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Check for hardcoded encryption keys
grep -rn "encryption_key\|ENCRYPTION_KEY\|secret_key\|SECRET_KEY\|private_key" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null | grep -v "process\.env\|os\.environ\|config\.\|\.env"

# Check for insecure random
grep -rn "Math\.random\|random\.random\|rand()\|srand" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.php" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Check password hashing
grep -rn "bcrypt\|argon2\|scrypt\|pbkdf2" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Check for sensitive data in plain text
grep -rn "password.*=\|creditCard\|ssn\|social_security\|credit_card" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null | grep -v "test\|spec\|mock\|hash\|bcrypt"

# Check TLS configuration
grep -rn "http://\|ssl.*false\|verify.*false\|rejectUnauthorized.*false\|VERIFY_NONE" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.java" src/ 2>/dev/null

What to flag:

  • Passwords stored with MD5/SHA1 instead of bcrypt/argon2
  • Sensitive data transmitted over HTTP
  • Hardcoded encryption keys or secrets
  • Weak TLS configuration
  • Math.random() for security-sensitive values
  • Sensitive data stored unencrypted at rest
  • Missing HSTS headers

A03:2021 — Injection

WSTG Tests:

  • WSTG-INPV-05: Testing for SQL Injection
  • WSTG-INPV-06: Testing for LDAP Injection
  • WSTG-INPV-07: Testing for XML Injection
  • WSTG-INPV-12: Testing for Command Injection
  • WSTG-INPV-11: Testing for Code Injection
# SQL Injection — string concatenation in queries
grep -rn "SELECT.*\+\|INSERT.*\+\|UPDATE.*\+\|DELETE.*\+\|WHERE.*\+\|\`SELECT\|\`INSERT\|\`UPDATE\|\`DELETE" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.java" --include="*.php" src/ 2>/dev/null | grep -v "test\|spec\|mock"

# SQL Injection — template literals in queries
grep -rn "query.*\${\|execute.*\${" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" src/ 2>/dev/null

# NoSQL Injection
grep -rn "find(\|findOne(\|updateOne(\|deleteOne(" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" src/ 2>/dev/null | grep "req\.\|request\."

# Command Injection
grep -rn "exec(\|execSync\|spawn(\|system(\|popen\|subprocess\.\(call\|run\|Popen\)" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# XSS — innerHTML and dangerouslySetInnerHTML
grep -rn "innerHTML\|dangerouslySetInnerHTML\|v-html\|\.html(\|{!!.*!!}" --include="*.ts" --include="*.tsx" --include="*.js" --include="*.jsx" --include="*.vue" --include="*.php" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Template Injection
grep -rn "render_template_string\|Template(\|Jinja2\|eval(" --include="*.py" --include="*.js" --include="*.ts" src/ 2>/dev/null

# LDAP Injection
grep -rn "ldap\.\|LDAP\.\|search_s\|search_ext" --include="*.py" --include="*.java" src/ 2>/dev/null

# XPath Injection
grep -rn "xpath\|XPath\|selectNodes\|evaluate(" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.java" src/ 2>/dev/null

What to flag:

  • String concatenation or template literals in SQL queries
  • User input passed directly to MongoDB queries
  • User input in exec/spawn/system calls
  • Unsanitized HTML rendering (innerHTML, dangerouslySetInnerHTML, v-html)
  • Template injection via user-controlled template strings
  • Missing parameterized queries

A04:2021 — Insecure Design

# Check for missing rate limiting
grep -rn "rate.limit\|rateLimit\|throttle\|slowDown" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Check for missing input validation library
cat package.json 2>/dev/null | grep -E "zod|joi|yup|class-validator|express-validator"
cat requirements.txt pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null | grep -E "pydantic|marshmallow|cerberus|voluptuous"

# Check for missing error boundaries / global error handling
grep -rn "errorHandler\|ErrorBoundary\|unhandledRejection\|uncaughtException" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.tsx" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Check for business logic flaws
grep -rn "TODO.*secur\|FIXME.*auth\|HACK.*valid\|XXX.*check" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

What to flag:

  • Missing rate limiting on authentication endpoints
  • Missing input validation framework
  • No global error handler
  • Missing account lockout mechanism
  • No bot detection on public forms
  • Missing business rule enforcement server-side
  • Trusting client-side validation only

A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration

# Debug mode in production configs
grep -rn "DEBUG.*=.*True\|debug.*:.*true\|NODE_ENV.*development" --include="*.py" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.yaml" --include="*.yml" --include="*.json" src/ config/ 2>/dev/null | grep -v "test\|spec\|dev"

# Default credentials
grep -rn "admin.*admin\|password.*password\|root.*root\|default.*password\|changeme" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.yaml" --include="*.yml" --include="*.json" . 2>/dev/null | grep -v "node_modules\|test\|spec\|\.md"

# Exposed stack traces / error details
grep -rn "stack.*trace\|traceback\|stackTrace\|\.stack\b" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null | grep -i "res\.\|response\.\|send\|json"

# Security headers check
grep -rn "helmet\|SecurityMiddleware\|Content-Security-Policy\|X-Frame-Options\|X-Content-Type-Options\|Strict-Transport-Security" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.conf" src/ config/ 2>/dev/null

# Permissive CORS
grep -rn "origin.*\*\|Access-Control-Allow-Origin.*\*\|cors({.*origin.*true" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Exposed internal paths/ports
grep -rn "localhost\|127\.0\.0\.1\|0\.0\.0\.0" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.yaml" --include="*.yml" src/ config/ 2>/dev/null | grep -v "test\|spec\|\.md"

# Dockerfile security
cat Dockerfile 2>/dev/null | grep -E "^USER|^FROM|COPY.*\.env|--no-cache"

# .env committed
git ls-files | grep -i "\.env$\|\.env\." | grep -v "\.example\|\.sample\|\.template"

# Exposed API docs in production
grep -rn "swagger\|openapi\|api-docs\|graphql.*playground\|graphiql" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.yaml" src/ config/ 2>/dev/null

What to flag:

  • Debug mode enabled in production configuration
  • Default credentials present
  • Stack traces returned in API responses
  • Missing security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options)
  • Wildcard CORS on authenticated endpoints
  • .env files committed to Git
  • Container running as root
  • Swagger/GraphQL playground exposed in production
  • Unnecessary services/ports exposed

A06:2021 — Vulnerable and Outdated Components

# Node.js vulnerability audit
npm audit --json 2>/dev/null | head -100

# Python vulnerability audit
pip audit --format json 2>/dev/null | head -100
safety check --json 2>/dev/null | head -100

# Check for outdated packages
npm outdated 2>/dev/null | head -30
pip list --outdated 2>/dev/null | head -30

# Check Node.js version EOL status
node --version 2>/dev/null

# Check for known vulnerable package versions
cat package-lock.json 2>/dev/null | grep -E "jsonwebtoken|lodash|axios|express" | head -20

# Check for unmaintained packages (rough heuristic)
cat package.json 2>/dev/null | grep -E '"dependencies"' -A 100 | grep -E '":' | head -30

What to flag:

  • Dependencies with known CVEs (critical and high)
  • Packages with no updates in 2+ years
  • Runtime/language version past end-of-life
  • Missing lockfile (package-lock.json, yarn.lock)
  • Unpinned dependency versions

A07:2021 — Identification and Authentication Failures

# Password policy
grep -rn "password.*length\|password.*min\|minLength.*password\|PASSWORD_MIN" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Session management
grep -rn "session\|cookie.*httpOnly\|cookie.*secure\|cookie.*sameSite\|maxAge\|expires" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# JWT configuration
grep -rn "jwt\.\|jsonwebtoken\|JWT_SECRET\|JWT_EXPIR\|expiresIn\|algorithm.*HS\|algorithm.*RS" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Brute force protection
grep -rn "lockout\|max.*attempt\|failed.*login\|login.*attempt\|account.*lock" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Password reset flow
grep -rn "reset.*password\|forgot.*password\|password.*reset\|reset.*token" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Multi-factor authentication
grep -rn "mfa\|2fa\|two.factor\|totp\|authenticator" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Token storage
grep -rn "localStorage\.\(set\|get\)Item.*token\|sessionStorage.*token" --include="*.ts" --include="*.tsx" --include="*.js" --include="*.jsx" src/ 2>/dev/null

What to flag:

  • No minimum password length or complexity requirements
  • Missing brute force protection on login
  • Tokens stored in localStorage (should use httpOnly cookies)
  • JWT with no expiration or very long expiration
  • JWT using weak algorithm (HS256 with short secret)
  • Missing session invalidation on logout
  • Password reset tokens that don't expire
  • Same error message for "user not found" and "wrong password" (information leakage)
  • Missing MFA option for sensitive operations

A08:2021 — Software and Data Integrity Failures

# Check for insecure deserialization
grep -rn "JSON\.parse\|pickle\.load\|yaml\.load\|unserialize\|ObjectInputStream\|eval(" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.php" --include="*.java" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Check for CI/CD security
cat .github/workflows/*.yml .gitlab-ci.yml 2>/dev/null | grep -E "secrets\.|pull_request_target|npm install|pip install" | head -20

# Check for subresource integrity
grep -rn "<script.*src=\|<link.*href=" --include="*.html" --include="*.tsx" --include="*.jsx" src/ public/ 2>/dev/null | grep -v "integrity="

# Check for webhook signature verification
grep -rn "webhook\|signature\|hmac\|verify.*signature" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

What to flag:

  • Unsafe deserialization of user input (pickle, yaml.load without SafeLoader, eval)
  • CI/CD pipelines running untrusted code
  • CDN scripts without subresource integrity (SRI) hashes
  • Webhook endpoints not verifying signatures
  • Missing code signing or integrity checks on updates

A09:2021 — Security Logging and Monitoring Failures

# Check for logging framework
grep -rn "winston\|pino\|bunyan\|morgan\|log4j\|logback\|logging\.\|logger\." --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.java" src/ 2>/dev/null | head -10

# Check for security event logging
grep -rn "login.*log\|auth.*log\|failed.*log\|unauthorized.*log\|forbidden.*log" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Check for sensitive data in logs
grep -rn "log.*password\|log.*token\|log.*secret\|log.*credit\|log.*ssn\|console\.log.*req\.body" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Check for error monitoring
cat package.json 2>/dev/null | grep -E "sentry|datadog|newrelic|bugsnag|rollbar"

# Check for audit trail
grep -rn "audit\|trail\|history\|changelog\|activity.*log" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

What to flag:

  • No structured logging framework in use
  • Authentication events not logged (login, logout, failed attempts)
  • Sensitive data appearing in logs (passwords, tokens, PII)
  • No error monitoring service configured
  • Missing audit trail for sensitive operations (admin actions, data changes)
  • Log files accessible without authentication
  • No alerting on security events

A10:2021 — Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

# Check for SSRF-prone code
grep -rn "fetch(\|axios\.\|request(\|http\.get\|urllib\|requests\.get\|HttpClient" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.java" src/ 2>/dev/null | grep -i "req\.\|params\|body\|query\|input\|user"

# Check for URL validation
grep -rn "url.*valid\|isURL\|parseURL\|new URL" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Check for internal network access prevention
grep -rn "127\.0\.0\.1\|localhost\|169\.254\|10\.\|172\.16\|192\.168\|0\.0\.0\.0\|::1" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" src/ 2>/dev/null | grep -i "block\|deny\|reject\|filter\|whitelist\|allowlist"

What to flag:

  • User-controlled URLs passed to fetch/axios/requests
  • No URL validation or allowlist for outgoing requests
  • No blocking of internal/private IP ranges
  • Ability to specify protocols (file://, gopher://, dict://)

3. OWASP ASVS Compliance Check

Map findings to ASVS verification levels:

Level 1 — Minimum (All Applications)

ASVS IDRequirementStatus
V1.2.1Verify use of unique or special low-privilege OS account for all components
V2.1.1Verify user set passwords are at least 12 characters
V2.1.2Verify passwords of at least 64 characters are permitted
V2.1.7Verify passwords submitted during registration are checked against breached password set
V3.2.1Verify the application generates new session tokens on user authentication
V3.4.1Verify cookie-based session tokens have Secure attribute
V3.4.2Verify cookie-based session tokens have HttpOnly attribute
V3.4.3Verify cookie-based session tokens use SameSite attribute
V4.1.1Verify the application enforces access control rules on a trusted service layer
V4.1.2Verify all user/data attributes cannot be manipulated by end users
V5.1.1Verify the application has defenses against HTTP parameter pollution
V5.2.1Verify all untrusted HTML input is properly sanitized using safe HTML library
V5.3.1Verify output encoding relevant for the interpreter and context used
V5.3.4Verify data selection or database queries use parameterized queries
V8.3.1Verify sensitive data is sent using TLS
V8.3.4Verify all sensitive data is created with associated mechanisms for removal
V9.1.1Verify TLS is used for all client connectivity
V14.2.1Verify all components are up to date

Level 2 — Standard (Applications Handling Sensitive Data)

ASVS IDRequirementStatus
V1.11.1Verify definition and documentation of all application components
V2.2.1Verify anti-automation controls protect against breached credential testing
V2.5.1Verify password change requires the current password
V2.8.1Verify time-based OTPs have a defined lifetime
V3.3.1Verify logout and expiration invalidates stateful session tokens
V3.5.1Verify the application allows users to revoke OAuth tokens
V4.2.1Verify sensitive data and APIs are protected against IDOR attacks
V5.2.4Verify the application avoids use of eval() or dynamic code execution
V5.5.1Verify serialized objects use integrity checks or encryption
V7.1.1Verify the application does not log credentials or payment details
V7.1.2Verify the application does not log other sensitive data
V8.1.1Verify the application protects sensitive data from being cached in server components
V9.1.2Verify TLS configuration uses current recommended cipher suites
V11.1.1Verify the application will only process business logic flows in sequential order
V13.1.1Verify all input is validated (API and web)
V14.4.1Verify every HTTP response contains a Content-Type header

Level 3 — Advanced (Critical Applications: Healthcare, Finance, Military)

ASVS IDRequirementStatus
V1.5.1Verify input and output requirements are documented
V1.14.1Verify segregation of components of differing trust levels
V6.2.1Verify all cryptographic modules fail securely
V6.2.5Verify known insecure block modes, padding modes, or ciphers are not used
V8.2.1Verify the application sets sufficient anti-caching headers
V9.2.1Verify connections to and from the server use trusted TLS certificates
V10.3.1Verify the application source code and third-party libraries are free of backdoors
V14.5.1Verify the application server only accepts defined HTTP methods

Mark each as: ✅ Pass | ❌ Fail | ⚠️ Partial | ⬜ Not Tested

4. CVSS v3.1 Scoring

Score each finding using CVSS v3.1:

Score Components

MetricValues
Attack Vector (AV)Network (N) / Adjacent (A) / Local (L) / Physical (P)
Attack Complexity (AC)Low (L) / High (H)
Privileges Required (PR)None (N) / Low (L) / High (H)
User Interaction (UI)None (N) / Required (R)
Scope (S)Unchanged (U) / Changed (C)
Confidentiality (C)None (N) / Low (L) / High (H)
Integrity (I)None (N) / Low (L) / High (H)
Availability (A)None (N) / Low (L) / High (H)

Severity Ratings

CVSS ScoreRatingColor
0.0None
0.1 - 3.9Low🟢
4.0 - 6.9Medium🟡
7.0 - 8.9High🟠
9.0 - 10.0Critical🔴

Common CVSS Vectors for Web Vulnerabilities

SQL Injection (unauthenticated):
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H → 9.8 Critical

Stored XSS:
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N → 5.4 Medium

IDOR (authenticated user):
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N → 6.5 Medium

Missing Rate Limiting on Login:
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N → 7.5 High

Exposed Secrets in Source:
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H → 9.8 Critical

Weak Password Storage (MD5):
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N → 7.4 High

Missing CSRF:
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N → 6.5 Medium

Missing Security Headers:
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N → 4.2 Medium

Debug Mode in Production:
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N → 5.3 Medium

Vulnerable Dependency (RCE):
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H → 9.8 Critical

5. Report Format

Generate the full report in this structure:

# Penetration Testing Report

## Executive Summary

**Application:** [Application Name]
**Version:** [Version/Commit]
**Assessment Date:** [Date]
**Assessor:** [Name/Team]
**Methodology:** OWASP WSTG v4.2, OWASP Top 10 (2021), OWASP ASVS v4.0
**Scope:** [What was tested — application, API, infrastructure]
**Classification:** [Confidential / Internal / Public]

### Overall Risk Rating

| Rating | [CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW] |
|--------|----------------------------------|
| Total Findings | X |
| Critical | X |
| High | X |
| Medium | X |
| Low | X |
| Informational | X |

### Risk Distribution

🔴 Critical:  ████░░░░░░ X findings
🟠 High:      ██████░░░░ X findings
🟡 Medium:    ████████░░ X findings
🟢 Low:       ██░░░░░░░░ X findings
⬜ Info:       █░░░░░░░░░ X findings

### Key Findings Summary

| # | Finding | OWASP Category | CVSS | Severity | Status |
|---|---------|---------------|------|----------|--------|
| 1 | [Title] | A01 - Broken Access Control | 9.1 | 🔴 Critical | Open |
| 2 | [Title] | A03 - Injection | 8.6 | 🟠 High | Open |
| 3 | [Title] | A02 - Cryptographic Failures | 7.4 | 🟠 High | Open |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

---

## Scope and Methodology

### In Scope
- [Application URL / repository]
- [API endpoints]
- [Authentication flows]
- [Business logic]

### Out of Scope
- [Infrastructure / hosting]
- [Third-party services]
- [Physical security]
- [Social engineering]

### Testing Approach
- Static Application Security Testing (SAST) — source code review
- Dependency vulnerability scanning
- Configuration review
- OWASP Top 10 coverage
- OWASP ASVS Level [1/2/3] verification

### Tools Used
- Manual code review
- grep-based pattern scanning
- npm audit / pip audit
- [Any additional tools]

---

## Detailed Findings

### Finding 1: [Title]

| Attribute | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| **ID** | PT-001 |
| **Severity** | 🔴 Critical |
| **CVSS Score** | 9.8 |
| **CVSS Vector** | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H |
| **OWASP Top 10** | A03:2021 — Injection |
| **OWASP WSTG** | WSTG-INPV-05 |
| **OWASP ASVS** | V5.3.4 |
| **CWE** | CWE-89: SQL Injection |
| **Location** | `src/api/routes/users.ts:45` |
| **Status** | Open |

**Description:**
[Detailed description of the vulnerability, how it was discovered,
and what it allows an attacker to do]

**Evidence:**

// Vulnerable code const user = await db.query(SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = '${req.params.id}');

**Impact:**
[What an attacker could achieve — data breach, account takeover, RCE, etc.]

**Proof of Concept:**

Example attack request

curl "https://app.example.com/api/users/1' OR '1'='1"

**Remediation:**

// Fixed code const user = await db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1', [req.params.id]);

**Remediation Priority:** Immediate
**Estimated Effort:** [time to fix]

---

[Repeat for each finding...]

---

## OWASP Top 10 Coverage Matrix

| Category | Tested | Findings | Highest Severity |
|----------|--------|----------|-----------------|
| A01 — Broken Access Control | ✅ | X | [severity] |
| A02 — Cryptographic Failures | ✅ | X | [severity] |
| A03 — Injection | ✅ | X | [severity] |
| A04 — Insecure Design | ✅ | X | [severity] |
| A05 — Security Misconfiguration | ✅ | X | [severity] |
| A06 — Vulnerable Components | ✅ | X | [severity] |
| A07 — Auth Failures | ✅ | X | [severity] |
| A08 — Data Integrity Failures | ✅ | X | [severity] |
| A09 — Logging & Monitoring | ✅ | X | [severity] |
| A10 — SSRF | ✅ | X | [severity] |

## ASVS Compliance Summary

| Level | Requirements | Passed | Failed | Not Tested | Compliance |
|-------|-------------|--------|--------|-----------|------------|
| L1 | X | X | X | X | X% |
| L2 | X | X | X | X | X% |
| L3 | X | X | X | X | X% |

## Remediation Roadmap

### Immediate (0-48 hours)
| # | Finding | Severity | Effort | Owner |
|---|---------|----------|--------|-------|
| 1 | [Critical finding] | 🔴 Critical | 2h | |
| 2 | [Critical finding] | 🔴 Critical | 4h | |

### Short-Term (1-2 weeks)
| # | Finding | Severity | Effort | Owner |
|---|---------|----------|--------|-------|
| 3 | [High finding] | 🟠 High | 1d | |
| 4 | [High finding] | 🟠 High | 2d | |

### Medium-Term (1 month)
| # | Finding | Severity | Effort | Owner |
|---|---------|----------|--------|-------|
| 5 | [Medium finding] | 🟡 Medium | 2d | |
| 6 | [Medium finding] | 🟡 Medium | 3d | |

### Long-Term (1-3 months)
| # | Finding | Severity | Effort | Owner |
|---|---------|----------|--------|-------|
| 7 | [Low finding] | 🟢 Low | 1d | |
| 8 | [Architectural change] | 🟡 Medium | 1w | |

## Positive Findings

List security controls that ARE properly implemented:
- [Example: Passwords are hashed with bcrypt with cost factor 12]
- [Example: All API endpoints require authentication]
- [Example: HTTPS is enforced with HSTS]
- [Example: SQL queries use parameterized statements]
- [Example: Dependency lockfile is committed]

## Recommendations

### Quick Wins
1. [Action that takes <1 hour and fixes a critical issue]
2. [Action that takes <1 hour and fixes a critical issue]

### Process Improvements
1. [Add dependency scanning to CI/CD pipeline]
2. [Implement security code review checklist]
3. [Set up automated SAST scanning]
4. [Schedule quarterly penetration testing]

### Architecture Improvements
1. [Implement WAF for additional protection layer]
2. [Add centralized logging and alerting]
3. [Implement secrets management solution]

---

## Appendix

### A. Testing Checklist (WSTG)
[Full list of WSTG test cases with pass/fail/N/A status]

### B. Dependency Vulnerability Report
[Full output of npm audit / pip audit]

### C. ASVS Detailed Results
[Full ASVS checklist with individual requirement status]

### D. Glossary
| Term | Definition |
|------|-----------|
| CVSS | Common Vulnerability Scoring System |
| CWE | Common Weakness Enumeration |
| OWASP | Open Worldwide Application Security Project |
| ASVS | Application Security Verification Standard |
| WSTG | Web Security Testing Guide |
| SSRF | Server-Side Request Forgery |
| IDOR | Insecure Direct Object Reference |
| XSS | Cross-Site Scripting |
| CSRF | Cross-Site Request Forgery |
| SQLi | SQL Injection |

---

**Report prepared following OWASP standards.**
**This report is confidential and intended for authorized recipients only.**

Adaptation Rules

  • Detect the ASVS level — Level 1 for basic apps, Level 2 for apps handling sensitive data, Level 3 for critical systems (healthcare, finance)
  • Focus on the stack — only run checks relevant to the detected technology
  • Use real file paths — reference exact lines where vulnerabilities are found
  • Provide working fixes — not just descriptions, but actual corrected code
  • Include positive findings — audits should acknowledge what's done well
  • Prioritize by exploitability — a remotely exploitable unauthenticated vulnerability is more urgent than a local authenticated one
  • Be specific — "SQL injection in user search endpoint at line 45" not "the app may have SQL injection"
  • Include CVSS vectors — allow teams to validate and adjust severity ratings
  • Generate remediation tickets — each finding should be actionable as a ticket
  • Flag false positives — if a pattern looks vulnerable but has mitigations, note it

Summary

End every penetration testing report with:

  1. Overall risk rating — Critical / High / Medium / Low
  2. Finding count — total and by severity
  3. Top 3 most critical findings — immediate action items
  4. OWASP Top 10 coverage — which categories had findings
  5. ASVS compliance percentage — for the targeted level
  6. Remediation timeline — immediate, short-term, medium-term, long-term
  7. Retest recommendation — when to schedule the next assessment

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

37.99%
按下载量换算55

Claude

28.51%
按下载量换算41

Cursor

19.86%
按下载量换算29

Gemini CLI

9.78%
按下载量换算14

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

未通过

权限和风险

执行命令

安装流程涉及命令执行,可能通过 npx skills add https://github.com/aakash-dhar/claude-skills --skill pentest-report 联网下载 Skill 或依赖。用户安装前应确认命令来源、仓库内容和执行环境。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills