crypto-review
Skill2 starsChanged 50 days agoMITView on GitHub
Finds cryptographic weaknesses in code — weak ciphers (DES, RC4, ECB mode), weak hashes (MD5, SHA-1) used for security purposes, hardcoded keys/IVs/salts, predictable randomness (Math.random, random, time-based tokens), disabled certificate verification, and undersized key lengths. Use when auditing anything involving encryption, hashing, tokens, certificates, or random number generation.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- dweinstein/mobile-security-skillstheir own version, first seen Mar 11, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- dweinstein/mobile-security-skills★ 40same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository23 other files it gives its agents.
- android-code-securitySkill
- auth-reviewSkill
- config-hardeningSkill
- container-iac-securitySkill
- course-platform-securitySkill
- cve-researchSkill
- data-exposureSkill
- dependency-vulnsSkill
- design-threat-reviewSkill
- django-securitySkill
- dotnet-securitySkill
- flow-securitySkill
- flutter-securitySkill
- graphql-securitySkill
- injection-flawsSkill
- laravel-securitySkill
- llm-securitySkill
- mobile-securitySkill
- rails-securitySkill
- secrets-detectionSkill
- security-auditSkill
- skill-forgeSkill
- spring-securitySkill
The file
Files
Cryptography Review
1 — Quick sweep
rg -n -i "md5|sha1|des\b|rc4|ecb|cbc\(|blowfish|math\.random\(\)|random\.random\(\)|srand\(|new date\(\)\.gettime\(\)|nanoid\(|uuid\.v1\(" -g '!*.md' -g '!*.lock' -g '!*-lock.yaml' -g '!*.sum' -g '!*.snap'
rg -n -i "rejectunauthorized\s*:\s*false|insecureskipverify\s*:\s*true|verify\s*=\s*false|ssl_verify|checkhostname|node_tls_reject_unauthorized" -g '!*.md' -g '!*.lock' -g '!*.sum'
rg -n -i "aes\.|createcipheriv|crypto\.randombytes|secrets\.|urandom|crypto/rand|rand\.read"
rg -n -i "(key|iv|salt|secret|passphrase)\s*[:=]\s*[\"'][a-z0-9]{8,}[\"']"2 — Judge each hit by purpose
Context decides severity. The same MD5 is noise in a cache key and CRITICAL in a password hash.
| Purpose | Weak (flag) | Strong (OK) |
| Password storage | MD5/SHA1/SHA-256, unsalted | bcrypt, argon2id, scrypt, pbkdf2(≥100k iters) |
| Integrity/MAC | MD5, SHA-1, homemade "XOR obfuscation" | HMAC-SHA256+; AES-GCM/ChaCha20-Poly1305 for AEAD |
| Encryption at rest | ECB mode, static IV, DES/RC4, key==password | AES-256-GCM / ChaCha20-Poly1305, random IV per message, authenticated |
| Tokens/secrets/IDs | Math.random(), random.random(), timestamp-based, uuid.v1() | CSPRNG: crypto.randomBytes, secrets, /dev/urandom, uuid.v4 (v5 for names) |
| TLS | rejectUnauthorized: false, InsecureSkipVerify, NODE_TLS_REJECT_UNAUTHORIZED=0 in prod code | verification on + pinned CAs |
3 — Deep checks
- Static vs per-message IVs:
createCipheriv('aes-256-cbc', key, FIXED_IV)or IV derived from deterministic data → HIGH (breaks semantic security; CBC+fixed IV leaks prefixes) - Hardcoded keys: any literal key/PEM in source → CRITICAL (see
../secrets-detection/SKILL.md); keys should come from env/secret manager, and rotate-by-commit means history keeps them - Key derivation: password used directly as AES key instead of KDF (PBKDF2/HKDF/scrypt) → HIGH
- Nonce reuse contexts: counters resetting per restart, random nonces >2^32 messages (GCM) — flag as note, usually theoretical
- Comparisons: token/password hash compared with
==instead of constant-time (timingSafeEqual,hmac.compare_digest) → LOW/MEDIUM (timing oracle) - Length: RSA < 2048, ECC < 256, HMAC-SHA1 legacy — MEDIUM hygiene
- Custom crypto: any hand-rolled cipher/XOR/"custom encoding" protecting real data → HIGH by default (rate as if broken)
- Multihashing / structured hashing with ambiguous encoding: hashing
MULTIPLE fields by raw concatenation —
hashlib.sha256(user + "|" + role + expiry),sha256(f"{a}:{b}"), chainedcreateHash('sha256').update(a).update(b)— has two failure modes: (1) AMBIGUOUS ENCODING: field values containing the separator (or empty fields) make distinct logical tuples hash identically — attacker- influenced fields then forge inputs to capability tokens, cache keys, dedup/commitment digests; (2) LENGTH-EXTENSION: secret-PREFIX concatenation with a Merkle–Damgård hash (MD/SHA-1/SHA-2) lets attackers append suffixes to the authenticated blob. Class writeup: ToB SequenceHash/SequenceMAC (2026-10, C2SP) — the constructions exist precisely because naive multihashing keeps biting. High when any input is attacker-influenced AND the digest commits/authenticates; Medium for internal non-adversarial use. Safe shape: unambiguous length-prefixed (or fixed-width) encoding + a domain/customization string — NIST TupleHash, ToB SequenceHash, or manual length-prefix; HMAC/SequenceMAC for keyed use; NEVER separator concatenation:
rg -n "hashlib\.(sha256|sha512|sha384|blake2b)\(\s*[^)\n]*\+" src/ app/ -g '*.py'
rg -n "hashlib\.(sha256|sha512)\(\s*f[\"']" src/ app/ -g '*.py'
rg -n "\.update\([^)]*\)\s*\.update\(" src/ app/ -g '*.js' -g '*.ts' -g '*.py'- MPC / threshold-crypto inside TEEs: single-use secrets (nonces, pre-signatures) must be consumed with rollback protection — delete-after-use alone fails because the untrusted TEE host can roll back the filesystem, forcing nonce-share reuse → private-key-share disclosure (ToB, 2026-09-25). Safe shape: monotonic counter / freshness bound in trusted storage before use. Attestation verification must cover quote signature + certificate chain to the vendor root + measurements vs known-good values (reproducible builds / binary transparency) — a "valid" quote over incomplete measurements (runtime-fetched code, unmeasured configs,
LD_PRELOAD-injectable libs) is false assurance. Constant-time discipline still applies inside the enclave — the host controls timing
4 — Reporting
Per finding: purpose ("password hashing"), current construction, why it fails (one sentence), the drop-in replacement with correct usage example (e.g. crypto.createCipheriv('aes-256-gcm', key, crypto.randomBytes(12))), and severity per the table. Note positives: libsodium/argon2/CSPRNG usage done right.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

