「security」の検索結果

Develop evidence-backed structural and architectural security hardening proposals from vulnerability disclosures, supplied findings, incident or assessment documents, source code, or a completed Codex Security scan. Use when a user asks for systemic improvements, alternatives beyond per-finding patches, before-and-after security architecture views, engineering tradeoff analysis, or an implementation-ready plan for a selected hardening option. Also use automatically after a Codex Security scan with reportable findings when the top-level scan workflow requests final-report hardening guidance.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Security-focused code review identifying high-confidence exploitable vulnerabilities with two-axis severity/confidence scoring, OWASP 2025 alignment, per-finding Haiku verification, and false positive filtering. Optional GitHub PR posting. Use when user runs /security-review, /review:security-review, requests a "security review", "security audit", "vulnerability scan", or mentions "find vulnerabilities", "check for exploits".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Pre-production security checklist for Agentforce deployments: agent run-as permission scope, grounding-source data classification, action write-scope, audit trail. NOT for the full go-live readiness gate covering cost telemetry, rate limits, rollout and rollback — use agentforce/agentforce-production-readiness-checklist. NOT for a general org security review — use security/security-health-check.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when configuring org-wide platform settings: MFA enforcement, My Domain setup and deployment, session timeout and security settings, password policies, trusted IP ranges (Network Access), and CSP Trusted Sites. Owns these settings as deployable Settings metadata (Security.settings, MyDomain.settings, Company.settings, Language.settings) and the order in which a new org is stood up. Trigger keywords: 'MFA setup', 'My Domain', 'session settings', 'password policy', 'trusted IP ranges', 'CSP trusted sites', 'Security.settings', 'SecuritySettings metadata', 'MyDomainSettings', 'settings-meta.xml', 'enhanced domains', 'deploy org settings', 'new org setup order', 'sessionTimeout enum', 'lockSessionsToIp', 'enableAdminLoginAsAnyUser'. NOT for user-level login restrictions (use user-management), NOT for permission model design (use permission-sets-vs-profiles), NOT for security audit and hardening review (use security/org-hardening-and-baseline-config).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Drafts a U.S. C-TPAT Security Profile for CBP submission covering physical, personnel, procedural, conveyance, and IT security domains. Use when preparing C-TPAT enrollment, certification, validation, or recertification profiles, or assembling a CBP-ready security narrative. Trigger: C-TPAT, CBP security profile, supply chain security, trusted trader, customs validation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Chief Security Officer mode. Infrastructure-first security audit: secrets archaeology, dependency supply chain, CI/CD pipeline security, LLM/AI security, skill supply chain scanning, plus OWASP Top 10, STRIDE threat modeling, and active verification. Two modes: daily (zero-noise, 8/10 confidence gate) and comprehensive (monthly deep scan, 2/10 bar). Trend tracking across audit runs. Use when: "security audit", "threat model", "pentest review", "OWASP", "CSO review".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when designing or fixing a Content Security Policy on a real site, choosing between nonce-based and hash-based CSP, adding strict-dynamic, debugging "Refused to execute inline script" errors, deploying CSP in report-only mode first, configuring report-to / report-uri, or auditing an existing policy for unsafe-inline / unsafe-eval / wildcards. Triggers: "CSP blocks legitimate inline script", strict-dynamic, nonce-{RANDOM}, sha256-{HASH}, object-src none, base-uri none, frame-ancestors, Trusted Types, X-Content-Security-Policy obsolete, report-only vs enforced. NOT for general HTTP security headers (HSTS, COOP/COEP), Trusted Types deep dive, CORS configuration, or building a WAF.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

AI-powered codebase security scanner that reasons about code like a security researcher — tracing data flows, understanding component interactions, and catching vulnerabilities that pattern-matching tools miss. Use this skill when asked to scan code for security vulnerabilities, find bugs, check for SQL injection, XSS, command injection, exposed API keys, hardcoded secrets, insecure dependencies, access control issues, or any request like "is my code secure?", "review for security issues", "audit this codebase", or "check for vulnerabilities". Covers injection flaws, authentication and access control bugs, secrets exposure, weak cryptography, insecure dependencies, and business logic issues across JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, Java, PHP, Go, Ruby, and Rust.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyze git repositories to build a security ownership topology (people-to-file), compute bus factor and sensitive-code ownership, and export CSV/JSON for graph databases and visualization. Trigger only when the user explicitly wants a security-oriented ownership or bus-factor analysis grounded in git history (for example: orphaned sensitive code, security maintainers, CODEOWNERS reality checks for risk, sensitive hotspots, or ownership clusters). Do not trigger for general maintainer lists or non-security ownership questions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Perform language and framework specific security best-practice reviews and suggest improvements. Trigger only when the user explicitly requests security best practices guidance, a security review/report, or secure-by-default coding help. Trigger only for supported languages (python, javascript/typescript, go). Do not trigger for general code review, debugging, or non-security tasks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Configure GitHub Advanced Security with CodeQL to perform automated static analysis and vulnerability Tespit across repositories at enterprise scale.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Implement eBPF-based runtime security observability and enforcement in Kubernetes clusters using Cilium Tetragon for kernel-level threat Tespit and policy enforcement.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Perform security testing of SOAP web services by analyzing WSDL definitions and testing for XML injection, XXE, WS-Security bypass, and SOAPAction spoofing.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Performs runtime mobile security exploration of iOS applications using Objection, a Frida-powered toolkit that enables security testers to interact with app internals without jailbreaking. Use when assessing iOS app security posture, bypassing client-side protections, dumping keychain items, inspecting filesystem storage, and evaluating runtime behavior. Activates for requests involving iOS security testing, Objection runtime analysis, Frida-based iOS assessment, or mobile runtime exploration.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Check any AI agent codebase against the OWASP Agentic Security Initiative (ASI) Top 10 risks. Use this skill when: - Evaluating an agent system's security posture before production deployment - Running a compliance check against OWASP ASI 2026 standards - Mapping existing security controls to the 10 agentic risks - Generating a compliance report for security review or audit - Comparing agent framework security features against the standard - Any request like "is my agent OWASP compliant?", "check ASI compliance", or "agentic security audit"

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Repository または subsystem を対象に、source-only で明示的なセキュリティ監査を行う entry skill。 通常の PR セキュリティレビューとは分離し、reconnaissance、scope 固定、既存 security skill への委譲、 evidence と unresolved hypothesis、observe-only SecurityAuditCoverage、coverage critic、 structured audit artifact と repeat-run coverage を扱う。target-controlled code は実行しない。

セキュリティ観点の通常レビューエージェント。 基本的なセキュリティチェック、認証・認可設計、プライバシー設計の個別スキルへルーティングする。 repository / subsystem の明示的な security audit は river-review-security-audit へ委譲する。

Check any AI agent codebase against the OWASP Agentic Security Initiative (ASI) Top 10 risks. Use this skill when: - Evaluating an agent system's security posture before production deployment - Running a compliance check against OWASP ASI 2026 standards - Mapping existing security controls to the 10 agentic risks - Generating a compliance report for security review or audit - Comparing agent framework security features against the standard - Any request like "is my agent OWASP compliant?", "check ASI compliance", or "agentic security audit"

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Expert security auditor specializing in DevSecOps, comprehensive cybersecurity, and compliance frameworks. Masters vulnerability assessment, threat modeling, secure authentication (OAuth2/OIDC), OWASP standards, cloud security, and security automation. Handles DevSecOps integration, compliance (GDPR/HIPAA/SOC2), and incident response. Use PROACTIVELY for security audits, DevSecOps, or compliance implementation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Performs runtime mobile security exploration of iOS applications using Objection, a Frida-powered toolkit that enables security testers to interact with app internals without jailbreaking. Use when assessing iOS app security posture, bypassing client-side protections, dumping keychain items, inspecting filesystem storage, and evaluating runtime behavior. Activates for requests involving iOS security testing, Objection runtime analysis, Frida-based iOS assessment, or mobile runtime exploration.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when designing or fixing a Content Security Policy on a real site, choosing between nonce-based and hash-based CSP, adding strict-dynamic, debugging "Refused to execute inline script" errors, deploying CSP in report-only mode first, configuring report-to / report-uri, or auditing an existing policy for unsafe-inline / unsafe-eval / wildcards. Triggers: "CSP blocks legitimate inline script", strict-dynamic, nonce-{RANDOM}, sha256-{HASH}, object-src none, base-uri none, frame-ancestors, Trusted Types, X-Content-Security-Policy obsolete, report-only vs enforced. NOT for general HTTP security headers (HSTS, COOP/COEP), Trusted Types deep dive, CORS configuration, or building a WAF.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

OpenClawの脆弱性報告を、公開済みのバージョンと信頼範囲の根拠で確認し、終了・継続・影響の絞り込みを判断して、管理者向けの返信案をまとめます。

• OpenClawの脆弱性報告を判断したいとき
• 公開版に不具合が残るか確認したいとき
• 既存の勧告との重複を調べたいとき

Quarkusアプリの認証・アクセス権限・入力検証を実装し、安全性を見直します。秘密情報の管理、パスワード保存、アクセス制限、監査ログや依存関係の点検も扱います。

• Quarkus APIにJWTやOIDC認証を追加したいとき
• 役割別の権限と所有者確認の点検
• 入力検証とデータベース検索の見直し

Run full security scans on the codebase using Ruflo security tools. Use when reviewing PRs for security regressions, auditing auth/input-handling code, before production deploys, or when the user asks for a security check at quick/standard/deep depth.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。