Install
$ agentstack add skill-celestialdust-achilles-skills-security-and-hardening Open-source listing, not yet scanned by AgentStack. Follow the source repository for install instructions.
Security review
⚠ Flagged1 finding(s); flagged for manual review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- • Prompt-injection patterns
- • Secret / credential exfiltration
- • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- • Untrusted network calls
- • Known-malicious package signatures
- high Dangerous shell/eval execution.
What it can access
- ● Network access Used
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ● Environment & secrets Used
- ● Dynamic code execution Used
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
security
Purpose
Stage: Review (agent fan-out) — one of three internal gates (with code-review, performance-optimization).
Security-first development practices for web applications. Treat every external input as hostile, every secret as sacred, and every authorization check as mandatory. Security isn't a phase — it's a constraint on every line of code that touches user data, authentication, or external systems.
When to use / when to skip
- Building anything that accepts user input
- Implementing authentication or authorization
- Storing or transmitting sensitive data
- Integrating with external APIs or services
- Adding file uploads, webhooks, or callbacks
- Handling payment or PII data
Skip only when the diff is docs/config-only with no executable surface; even then, secret-scan the diff. Never skip on a diff that touches input, auth, secrets, fetches, or LLM output.
Inputs
Consumes (refuse-to-run if absent):
- The slice's implementation diff — the code under review. No diff ⇒ nothing to audit ⇒ refuse to run.
Contextual (read-only; sharpens the audit, not refuse-to-run):
- The slice id and its frozen
Regression surface(fromSTATE.md/plan.md) — lets a CRITICAL/secret be localized to this slice vs. classified repo-wide. acceptance.mdsecurity-observable scenarios — when the feature has LLM or untrusted-input surfaces, to know which abuse cases were promised.
Dispatch contract: you run as a fresh, code-cold subagent in parallel on the security axis (maker≠checker; parallelism.md mech f) with no test-write access. You read the diff cold — you do not see the implementer's reasoning, and you must not weaken any test or the frozen acceptance.md/Regression surface to make a finding go away (that is gate-erosion).
Process: Threat Model First
Controls bolted on without a threat model are guesses. Before hardening, spend five minutes thinking like an attacker:
- Map the trust boundaries. Where does untrusted data cross into your system? HTTP requests, form fields, file uploads, webhooks, third-party APIs, message queues, and LLM output. Every boundary is attack surface.
- Name the assets. What's worth stealing or breaking? Credentials, PII, payment data, admin actions, money movement.
- Run STRIDE over each boundary — a quick lens, not a ceremony:
| Threat | Ask | Typical mitigation | |---|---|---| | Spoofing | Can someone impersonate a user/service? | Authentication, signature verification | | Tampering | Can data be altered in transit or at rest? | Integrity checks, parameterized queries, HTTPS | | Repudiation | Can an action be denied later? | Audit logging of security events | | Information disclosure | Can data leak? | Encryption, field allowlists, generic errors | | Denial of service | Can it be overwhelmed? | Rate limiting, input size caps, timeouts | | Elevation of privilege | Can a user gain rights they shouldn't? | Authorization checks, least privilege |
- Write abuse cases next to use cases. For each feature, ask "how would I misuse this?" — then make that your first test.
If you can't name the trust boundaries for a feature, you're not ready to secure it. This is OWASP A04: Insecure Design — most breaches begin in design, not code.
The Three-Tier Boundary System
Always Do (No Exceptions)
- Validate all external input at the system boundary (API routes, form handlers)
- Parameterize all database queries — never concatenate user input into SQL
- Encode output to prevent XSS (use framework auto-escaping, don't bypass it)
- Use HTTPS for all external communication
- Hash passwords with bcrypt/scrypt/argon2 (never store plaintext)
- Set security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options)
- Use httpOnly, secure, sameSite cookies for sessions
- Run
npm audit(or equivalent) before every release
Ask First (Requires Human Approval)
- Adding new authentication flows or changing auth logic
- Storing new categories of sensitive data (PII, payment info)
- Adding new external service integrations
- Changing CORS configuration
- Adding file upload handlers
- Modifying rate limiting or throttling
- Granting elevated permissions or roles
Never Do
- Never commit secrets to version control (API keys, passwords, tokens)
- Never log sensitive data (passwords, tokens, full credit card numbers)
- Never trust client-side validation as a security boundary
- Never disable security headers for convenience
- Never use
eval()orinnerHTMLwith user-provided data - Never store sessions in client-accessible storage (localStorage for auth tokens)
- Never expose stack traces or internal error details to users
OWASP Top 10 Prevention Patterns
These are prevention patterns, not a ranking. For the 2021 ordering, see the quick-reference table in ../../references/security-checklist.md.
Injection (SQL, NoSQL, OS Command)
// BAD: SQL injection via string concatenation
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = '${userId}'`;
// GOOD: Parameterized query
const user = await db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1', [userId]);
// GOOD: ORM with parameterized input
const user = await prisma.user.findUnique({ where: { id: userId } });
Broken Authentication
// Password hashing
import { hash, compare } from 'bcrypt';
const SALT_ROUNDS = 12;
const hashedPassword = await hash(plaintext, SALT_ROUNDS);
const isValid = await compare(plaintext, hashedPassword);
// Session management
app.use(session({
secret: process.env.SESSION_SECRET, // From environment, not code
resave: false,
saveUninitialized: false,
cookie: {
httpOnly: true, // Not accessible via JavaScript
secure: true, // HTTPS only
sameSite: 'lax', // CSRF protection
maxAge: 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000, // 24 hours
},
}));
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
// BAD: Rendering user input as HTML
element.innerHTML = userInput;
// GOOD: Use framework auto-escaping (React does this by default)
return {userInput};
// If you MUST render HTML, sanitize first
import DOMPurify from 'dompurify';
const clean = DOMPurify.sanitize(userInput);
Broken Access Control
// Always check authorization, not just authentication
app.patch('/api/tasks/:id', authenticate, async (req, res) => {
const task = await taskService.findById(req.params.id);
// Check that the authenticated user owns this resource
if (task.ownerId !== req.user.id) {
return res.status(403).json({
error: { code: 'FORBIDDEN', message: 'Not authorized to modify this task' }
});
}
// Proceed with update
const updated = await taskService.update(req.params.id, req.body);
return res.json(updated);
});
Security Misconfiguration
// Security headers (use helmet for Express)
import helmet from 'helmet';
app.use(helmet());
// Content Security Policy
app.use(helmet.contentSecurityPolicy({
directives: {
defaultSrc: ["'self'"],
scriptSrc: ["'self'"],
styleSrc: ["'self'", "'unsafe-inline'"], // Tighten if possible
imgSrc: ["'self'", 'data:', 'https:'],
connectSrc: ["'self'"],
},
}));
// CORS — restrict to known origins
app.use(cors({
origin: process.env.ALLOWED_ORIGINS?.split(',') || 'http://localhost:3000',
credentials: true,
}));
Sensitive Data Exposure
// Never return sensitive fields in API responses
function sanitizeUser(user: UserRecord): PublicUser {
const { passwordHash, resetToken, ...publicFields } = user;
return publicFields;
}
// Use environment variables for secrets
const API_KEY = process.env.STRIPE_API_KEY;
if (!API_KEY) throw new Error('STRIPE_API_KEY not configured');
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Any time the server fetches a URL the user influenced — webhooks, "import from URL", image proxies, link previews — an attacker can aim it at internal services (cloud metadata, localhost, private IPs).
// BAD: fetch whatever the user gives you
await fetch(req.body.webhookUrl);
// GOOD: allowlist scheme + host, reject if ANY resolved IP is private, forbid redirects
import { lookup } from 'node:dns/promises';
import ipaddr from 'ipaddr.js';
const ALLOWED_HOSTS = new Set(['hooks.example.com']);
async function assertSafeUrl(raw: string): Promise {
const url = new URL(raw);
if (url.protocol !== 'https:') throw new Error('https only');
if (!ALLOWED_HOSTS.has(url.hostname)) throw new Error('host not allowed');
// Resolve ALL records; a single private/reserved address fails the check.
const addrs = await lookup(url.hostname, { all: true });
if (addrs.some((a) => ipaddr.parse(a.address).range() !== 'unicast')) {
throw new Error('private/reserved IP');
}
return url;
}
await fetch(await assertSafeUrl(req.body.webhookUrl), { redirect: 'error' });
The range() !== 'unicast' check covers loopback, link-local 169.254.169.254 (cloud metadata, the #1 SSRF target), private, and unique-local ranges across IPv4 and IPv6.
Caveat — this still has a TOCTOU gap. fetch resolves DNS again after the check, so an attacker using a short-TTL record can rebind to an internal IP between validation and connection. For high-risk surfaces, resolve once and connect to the pinned IP, or put a filtering agent in front (request-filtering-agent / ssrf-req-filter).
Input Validation Patterns
Schema Validation at Boundaries
import { z } from 'zod';
const CreateTaskSchema = z.object({
title: z.string().min(1).max(200).trim(),
description: z.string().max(2000).optional(),
priority: z.enum(['low', 'medium', 'high']).default('medium'),
dueDate: z.string().datetime().optional(),
});
// Validate at the route handler
app.post('/api/tasks', async (req, res) => {
const result = CreateTaskSchema.safeParse(req.body);
if (!result.success) {
return res.status(422).json({
error: {
code: 'VALIDATION_ERROR',
message: 'Invalid input',
details: result.error.flatten(),
},
});
}
// result.data is now typed and validated
const task = await taskService.create(result.data);
return res.status(201).json(task);
});
File Upload Safety
// Restrict file types and sizes
const ALLOWED_TYPES = ['image/jpeg', 'image/png', 'image/webp'];
const MAX_SIZE = 5 * 1024 * 1024; // 5MB
function validateUpload(file: UploadedFile) {
if (!ALLOWED_TYPES.includes(file.mimetype)) {
throw new ValidationError('File type not allowed');
}
if (file.size > MAX_SIZE) {
throw new ValidationError('File too large (max 5MB)');
}
// Don't trust the file extension — check magic bytes if critical
}
Triaging npm audit Results
Not all audit findings require immediate action. Use this decision tree:
npm audit reports a vulnerability
├── Severity: critical or high
│ ├── Is the vulnerable code reachable in your app?
│ │ ├── YES --> Fix immediately (update, patch, or replace the dependency)
│ │ └── NO (dev-only dep, unused code path) --> Fix soon, but not a blocker
│ └── Is a fix available?
│ ├── YES --> Update to the patched version
│ └── NO --> Check for workarounds, consider replacing the dependency, or add to allowlist with a review date
├── Severity: moderate
│ ├── Reachable in production? --> Fix in the next release cycle
│ └── Dev-only? --> Fix when convenient, track in backlog
└── Severity: low
└── Track and fix during regular dependency updates
Key questions:
- Is the vulnerable function actually called in your code path?
- Is the dependency a runtime dependency or dev-only?
- Is the vulnerability exploitable given your deployment context (e.g., a server-side vulnerability in a client-only app)?
When you defer a fix, document the reason and set a review date.
Supply-Chain Hygiene
npm audit catches known CVEs; it won't catch a malicious or typosquatted package. Also:
- Commit the lockfile and install with
npm ci(notnpm install) in CI — reproducible builds, no silent version drift. - Review new dependencies before adding them — maintenance, download counts, and whether they truly earn their place. Every dependency is attack surface (OWASP A06: Vulnerable Components, LLM03: Supply Chain).
- Be wary of
postinstallscripts in unfamiliar packages — they run arbitrary code at install time. - Watch for typosquats —
cross-envvscrossenv,react-domvsreactdom.
Rate Limiting
import rateLimit from 'express-rate-limit';
// General API rate limit
app.use('/api/', rateLimit({
windowMs: 15 * 60 * 1000, // 15 minutes
max: 100, // 100 requests per window
standardHeaders: true,
legacyHeaders: false,
}));
// Stricter limit for auth endpoints
app.use('/api/auth/', rateLimit({
windowMs: 15 * 60 * 1000,
max: 10, // 10 attempts per 15 minutes
}));
Secrets Management
.env files:
├── .env.example → Committed (template with placeholder values)
├── .env → NOT committed (contains real secrets)
└── .env.local → NOT committed (local overrides)
.gitignore must include:
.env
.env.local
.env.*.local
*.pem
*.key
Always check before committing:
# Check for accidentally staged secrets
git diff --cached | grep -i "password\|secret\|api_key\|token"
If a secret is ever committed, rotate it. Deleting the line or rewriting history is not enough — assume it's compromised the moment it reaches a remote. Revoke and reissue the key first, then purge it from history.
Securing AI / LLM Features
If your app calls an LLM — chatbots, summarizers, agents, RAG — it inherits a new attack surface. Map it to the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications (2025):
- Treat all model output as untrusted input (LLM05: Improper Output Handling). Never pass LLM output straight into
eval, SQL, a shell,innerHTML, or a file path. Validate and encode it exactly as you would raw user input. - Assume prompts can be hijacked (LLM01: Prompt Injection). Untrusted text in the context window — a user message, a fetched web page, a PDF — can carry instructions. The system prompt is not a security boundary; enforce permissions in code, not in the prompt.
- Keep secrets and other users' data out of prompts (LLM02 / LLM07). Anything in the context can be echoed back. Don't put API keys, cross-tenant data, or the full system prompt where the model can repeat it.
- Constrain tool and agent permissions (LLM06: Excessive Agency). Scope tools to the minimum, require confirmation for destructive or irreversible actions, and validate every tool argument.
- Bound consumption (LLM10: Unbounded Consumption). Cap tokens, request rate, and loop/recursion depth so a crafted input can't run up cost or hang the system.
- Isolate retrieval data (LLM08: Vector and Embedding Weaknesses). In RAG, treat the vector store as a trust boundary: partition embeddings per tenant so one user can't retrieve another's data, and validate documents before indexing so poisoned content can't steer answers.
// BAD: trusting model output as a command or as markup
const sql = await llm.generate(`Write SQL for: ${userQuestion}`);
await db.query(sql); // arbitrary query execution
container.innerHTML = await llm.reply(userMessage); // stored XSS, via the model
// GOOD: model output is data — parse defensively, then validate, then encode
let intent;
try {
intent = CommandSchema.parse(JSON.parse(await llm.replyJson(userMessage)));
} catch {
throw new ValidationError('unexpected model output'); // JSON.parse or schema failed
}
await runAllowlistedAction(intent.action, intent.params);
container.textContent = await llm.reply(user
…
## Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- **Author:** [celestialdust](https://github.com/celestialdust)
- **Source:** [celestialdust/achilles-skills](https://github.com/celestialdust/achilles-skills)
- **License:** MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.