feat: skillsentry-to-ave and skill-security-scanner-to-ave crosswalks - #191
Merged
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: chaksaray <15962335+chaksaray@users.noreply.github.com>
Revisits the deferred bandwidth check on both tools: both have real, structured output (named rules, severity, categories), confirmed from their actual code rather than star counts, the same mistake sast-skills' high star count nearly caused earlier. skillsentry: 24 rules, 7 verify at the mechanism level, 5 partial (real overlap but narrower/broader than AVE's fingerprint), 12 confirmed gaps. skill-security-scanner: substantially larger surface (54 config rules + 5 algorithmic detectors), closer in caliber to Ramparts/nova-proximity. Documents three findings beyond a simple match count: the injection category has the same signature-vs-reachability gap the Ramparts crosswalk already flagged for the same AVE record; IOCDetector's reputation-list approach has no AVE counterpart by design (AVE is behavioral fingerprints over signatures); LLMAnalyzer's free-form output has no fixed taxonomy to crosswalk against.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Revisits the deferred bandwidth check on both tools from earlier research: does either have real, structured output worth the full verification treatment, or is either too thin/free-form? Answered directly from the actual code, not star counts.
skillsentry (vythanhtra/skillsentry)
Modest but real: a single 796-line engine driven by 24 rules in
resources/rules.yaml(id/pattern/severity/category/description/weight). 7 rules verify at the mechanism level (obfuscation -> AVE-2026-00057, RTLO -> AVE-2026-00029, cron/startup -> AVE-2026-00008), 5 are partial matches, 12 are confirmed gaps (cloud-metadata SSRF, clipboard harvesting, and others have no AVE analog today).skill-security-scanner (honysyang/skill-security-scanner)
Substantially larger: 54 named rules across 10 categories plus 5 algorithmic detectors (entropy, hidden-char, base64, IOC lookup, LLM analysis). Closer in caliber to Ramparts/nova-proximity. AVE-2026-00008 (persistence) is the strongest single match found in either tool, 6-7 of 7 persistence rules verify directly. Three findings worth flagging beyond the match count:
Also confirmed clean gaps in both directions worth naming: OS-level privilege escalation primitives (sudo/chmod/setuid) have no AVE analog (AVE's whole Privilege Escalation class operates one level up, at the agent/permission-model layer), and npm postinstall/preinstall/setup.py lifecycle-hook abuse (a well-known, named supply-chain technique) has zero current AVE coverage.
Validation
Both files validated two ways:
python3 scripts/validate_crosswalks.py-> 9/9 valid, zero warnings on either new file (both source and target commits pinned); and a direct rawjsonschemaDraft 2020-12 validation againstschema/crosswalk-1.0.0.schema.json, independent of the project's own validator script.pytest tests/-> 339 passed.Outreach
Per standing project convention, the actual crosswalk content (not a deferred pointer) is being posted directly to each tool's own repo as an issue, mirroring the Semia outreach (berabuddies/Semia#36).
Base branch note
Targets
developper this repo's established convention, notmain.🤖 Generated with Claude Code