跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

risk-prioritiser

Risk-based prioritisation of confirmed attack paths. Combines exploit feasibility, technical CVSS severity, and asset business impact into a single ranked list driving remediation roadmaps.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

transilienceai/communitytools星标 595(GitHub 595 + cccskills 0)

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

包含的文件(2)

  • SKILL.md6.0 KB
  • reference/scoring-formula.md3.7 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Risk Prioritiser

Consume the attack-path graph + the client-supplied business-tier map and emit a single ranked list of paths the org should remediate first. Mounted onto cloud-agent task #7.

Trigger

Cron daily after attack-path-stitcher (task #6) completes. Also event-fires when a new validated/*.json is written with nvd.score >= 9.0.

Workflow

  1. Load inputs.
    • artifacts/attack-paths.json — graph from task #6. Split into confirmed_paths (RFP-grade) and inferred_paths (topology/supply-chain).
    • business-tier-map.csv — client-supplied asset → tier. Search order: {OUTPUT_DIR}/business-tier-map.csv → projects/rfp-3.3/schemas/business-tier-map.csv.
  2. Score each confirmed_paths entry.
    • feasibility = product of every edge's feasibility along the path. For confirmed paths this is always 1.0.
    • technical_severity = max_cvss_along_path / 10.
    • business_impact = tier weight of the destination (crown_jewel = 1.0 by definition).
    • entry_exposure = 1.0 if entry node is external: true, else 0.5.
    • Final score = feasibility × technical_severity × business_impact × entry_exposure.
  3. Score each single-asset validated finding that does not sit on a confirmed path. Same formula; feasibility = 1.0, business_impact = asset's own tier weight, hop count = 1.
  4. Score each inferred_paths entry, but cap their bucket placement at theoretical regardless of numeric score. Inferred paths NEVER reach immediate / short_term / medium_term — RFP §3.3 requires "confirmed", and inferred paths are evidence-deficient by construction.
  5. Sort descending. Stable tie-break order: max CVSS desc → hop count asc → finding age desc (newer first).
  6. Bucket into roadmap tiers.
    • immediate (0-7 days): confirmed AND score ≥ 0.6
    • short_term (7-30 days): confirmed AND 0.3 ≤ score < 0.6
    • medium_term (30-90 days): confirmed AND 0.1 ≤ score < 0.3
    • monitor: confirmed AND score < 0.1
    • theoretical (track-only): any path with path_class != "confirmed". Surfaced in board reports but excluded from the remediation SLA roadmap.
  7. Write outputs to artifacts/attack-paths-ranked.json + attack-paths-ranked.md. Each row carries path_class so downstream consumers can filter.

Tier weights

TierWeight
crown_jewel1.00
revenue0.70
support0.40
dev0.20
unknown0.30

The unknown weight is deliberately above support to bias toward investigating un-mapped assets — they often turn out to be high-tier once discovered.

Output

{OUTPUT_DIR}/
  artifacts/
    attack-paths-ranked.json
    attack-paths-ranked.md

attack-paths-ranked.json schema:

{
  "generated_at": "2026-05-13T03:30:00Z",
  "tier_weights_used": {"crown_jewel": 1.0, "revenue": 0.7, "support": 0.4, "dev": 0.2, "unknown": 0.3},
  "ranked": [
    {
      "rank": 1,
      "kind": "path",
      "path_class": "confirmed",
      "path_id": "asset05->asset42->asset99",
      "hops": ["asset05", "asset42", "asset99"],
      "feasibility": 1.0,
      "max_cvss": 9.8,
      "business_impact": 1.0,
      "entry_exposure": 1.0,
      "score": 0.98,
      "bucket": "immediate",
      "remediation_focus": "asset05"
    },
    {
      "rank": 2,
      "kind": "finding",
      "path_class": "confirmed",
      "finding_id": "finding-018",
      "asset": "asset42",
      "feasibility": 1.0,
      "max_cvss": 9.1,
      "business_impact": 0.7,
      "entry_exposure": 1.0,
      "score": 0.637,
      "bucket": "immediate"
    }
  ],
  "buckets": {"immediate": 4, "short_term": 11, "medium_term": 22, "monitor": 8, "theoretical": 14}
}

Remediation focus

For each ranked path, pick a single remediation_focus asset — the one whose patch breaks the chain at the lowest cost:

  • If any edge has feasibility < 1.0 → focus on that edge's source asset. The weakest pivot is the attacker's cheapest hop; hardening it eliminates the easiest entry.
  • If every edge is feasibility 1.0 (fully confirmed chain) → focus on the path's entry asset (hops[0]). Patching the externally-reachable foothold breaks every downstream hop and is the cheapest patch surface operationally.

This rule yields a single deterministic asset id per path. The previous "edge contribution formula" was deprecated — on uniformly-confirmed chains every edge has identical contribution, which gives no useful signal.

Rules

  1. Always derive from attack-paths.json. Do not re-derive feasibility / CVSS — those are already validated by upstream tasks.
  2. business-tier-map.csv is authoritative. If an asset is missing from the map, use unknown tier weight + flag unmapped_assets[] at the top of the JSON output.
  3. Stable rank for stable input. Re-running on identical input must produce byte-identical output.
  4. No new findings. Prioritisation never creates findings; it only re-orders.
  5. Bucket thresholds are config. The 0.6/0.3/0.1 cuts can be overridden via --thresholds argument when running on a client with different remediation cadences. Default values match the Transilience report's "Immediate / Short-term / Medium-term" labels.

Implementation

The scoring is implemented deterministically by tools/risk-prioritise.py (not delegated to an LLM agent), to satisfy Rule 3 (stable rank for stable input). The tool reads artifacts/attack-paths.json and writes the two output files. Override the tier weights or bucket thresholds with --tier-weights / --thresholds JSON arguments — recorded in the output for audit.

References

  • reference/scoring-formula.md — worked example + edge-case behaviour.
  • projects/rfp-3.3/schemas/business-tier-map.csv — input schema and example rows.
  • tools/risk-prioritise.py — deterministic implementation.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Offensive AI security testing and exploitation framework. Systematically tests LLM applications for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities including prompt injection, model extraction, data poisoning, and supply chain attacks. Integrates with pentest workflows to discover and exploit AI-specific threats.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

transilienceai/communitytools5952026年7月30日 更新

API security testing - GraphQL, REST API, WebSocket, and Web-LLM attack techniques.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

transilienceai/communitytools5952026年7月30日 更新

Stitches confirmed single-asset findings into multi-hop attack paths across the organization. Builds a graph where nodes are assets and edges are confirmed exploit hops citing the findings that enable them.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

transilienceai/communitytools5952026年7月30日 更新

Acquire an authenticated session THROUGH MFA/OTP on an in-scope target and emit a reusable session artifact (Playwright storageState + Bearer) so executors can test the post-auth attack surface. Use when the highest-value authenticated classes (BOLA/IDOR/mass-assignment/injection on the real data APIs) are blocked because login is gated by SMS-OTP or TOTP MFA. Distinct from the authentication skill (which ATTACKS auth); this one legitimately authenticates and hands the session to the rest of the engagement.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

transilienceai/communitytools5952026年7月30日 更新

Authentication security testing - auth bypass, JWT attacks, OAuth flaws, password attacks, 2FA bypass, CAPTCHA bypass, and bot detection evasion.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

transilienceai/communitytools5952026年7月30日 更新

Smart contract security testing and blockchain CTF exploitation. Covers Solidity vulnerability analysis, EVM storage manipulation, delegatecall attacks, CREATE/CREATE2 address prediction, and common DeFi exploit patterns. Use when analyzing Solidity contracts, solving blockchain challenges, or testing smart contract security.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

transilienceai/communitytools5952026年7月30日 更新

查看 transilienceai 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题