senior-security
熱門Use when the user asks for STRIDE threat modeling, DREAD risk scoring, data-flow-diagram threat analysis, or a quick secret scan — or when a security request needs routing to the right specialist skill (pen-testing, incident response, cloud posture, red team, AI security, threat hunting, secure code review). This skill owns threat modeling; everything else routes to a sibling.
Use when the user asks for STRIDE threat modeling, DREAD risk scoring, data-flow-diagram threat analysis, or a quick secret scan — or when a security request needs routing to the right specialist skill (pen-testing, incident response, cloud posture, red team, AI security, threat hunting, secure code review). This skill owns threat modeling; everything else routes to a sibling.
Senior Security Engineer — Threat Modeling + Security Router
This skill does exactly one job itself — STRIDE/DREAD threat modeling (plus a quick secret scan) — and routes every other security request to the specialist skill that owns that lane. Do not duplicate sibling content here; route instead.
Routing Table (read this first)
| The user wants... | Route to | Why that skill owns it |
|---|---|---|
| Vulnerability assessment, pen-test methodology, OWASP Top 10 testing | ../security-pen-testing/ |
Ships vulnerability_scanner.py + dependency_auditor.py with exit-code contracts |
| Incident triage, SEV classification, forensics, containment | ../incident-response/ |
SEV1–SEV4 taxonomy, NIST SP 800-61 phases, incident_triage.py |
| Production outage command (non-security incidents) | ../incident-commander/ |
Severity classifier + timeline + postmortem tools |
| Security monitoring, CVE triage SLAs, compliance checks (SOC 2 etc.), security headers | ../senior-secops/ |
security_scanner.py + compliance_checker.py, CVE SLA table |
| Hostile/adversarial code review | ../adversarial-reviewer/ |
3-persona review with BLOCK/CONCERNS/CLEAN verdict |
| Secure code review as part of general review | ../code-reviewer/ |
Language dispatch + regression fixtures |
| Cloud IAM escalation paths, S3 exposure, security groups | ../cloud-security/ |
cloud_posture_check.py with per-check exit codes |
| Threat hunting, IOC sweeps, anomaly detection | ../threat-detection/ |
z-score anomaly + IOC staleness tooling |
| Red-team engagement planning, ATT&CK kill chains | ../red-team/ |
engagement_planner.py with authorization gate |
| LLM/AI attack surface (prompt injection, poisoning) | ../ai-security/ |
ATLAS-mapped ai_threat_scanner.py |
If the request spans lanes (e.g., "secure this new architecture"), do the threat model here first — its output (prioritized threats + mitigations) tells you which siblings to load next. Never bulk-load multiple security skills speculatively.
What This Skill Owns: STRIDE Threat Modeling
Workflow
- Scope: assets to protect, trust boundaries, data flows (external entities, processes, data stores, flows).
- Generate the threat model per component:
Output: per-threat STRIDE category, DREAD score (Damage, Reproducibility, Exploitability, Affected users, Discoverability — each 1–10), and suggested mitigations. Repeat per DFD element;python3 scripts/threat_modeler.py --component "User Authentication" --assets "credentials,sessions" --json --output threats.json--interactivewalks scoping questions;--list-threatsshows the threat database. - Consume the output: sort
threats.jsonby DREAD score descending; everything ≥ 7 average needs a named mitigation owner before the design ships. Map each mitigation to the responsible sibling lane (e.g., IAM threats →cloud-security, injection threats →code-reviewer). - Quick secret sweep while you have the codebase open:
20+ patterns (AWS keys, GitHub tokens, private keys, generic credentials). Any critical/high finding blocks merge until rotated and moved to a secret manager.python3 scripts/secret_scanner.py /path/to/project --format json --severity high - Verification gate: every DFD element has ≥ 1 STRIDE row considered, every threat with DREAD ≥ 7 has an owner + mitigation, and the secret scan exits with zero high/critical findings. Re-run both tools after mitigations land — that re-run is the done signal, not the document.
STRIDE per Element Matrix
| DFD Element | S | T | R | I | D | E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| External Entity | X | X | ||||
| Process | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Data Store | X | X | X | X | ||
| Data Flow | X | X | X |
(S=Spoofing→authn, T=Tampering→integrity, R=Repudiation→audit logs, I=Info Disclosure→encryption/access control, D=DoS→rate limiting/redundancy, E=Elevation→least privilege.)
References (load on demand)
| Document | Content |
|---|---|
| references/threat-modeling-guide.md | STRIDE methodology, attack trees, DREAD scoring, DFD creation |
| references/security-architecture-patterns.md | Zero Trust, defense-in-depth, authentication patterns, API security |
| references/cryptography-implementation.md | AES-GCM, Ed25519, password hashing (Argon2id), key management |
The architecture and crypto references are kept because no sibling ships them; for operating those controls (scanning, compliance, monitoring) still route to senior-secops.
