agentleFS
awarexoneawarexone/AXguard/authentication-analysis/SKILL.md

authentication-analysis

Skill17 starsChanged 47 days agoMITView on GitHub

Analyze authentication mechanisms — use when reviewing login, MFA, password storage, account recovery, API keys, or credential handling failures (CWE-287 / A07:2021 / API2:2023).

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    After AXguard hits auth.*, secrets.*, or weak password hashing (crypto.*).

    line 43
  2. Distinctive:

    Use hard-coded or leaked service credentials.

    line 61
  3. Distinctive:

    Check MFA enforceability for sensitive roles.

    line 70
  4. Distinctive:

    Test-only backdoors clearly excluded from production builds

    line 83
  5. Very specific:

    Remove hard-coded credentials.

    line 92

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Authentication Analysis

Purpose

Encode pre-ship reasoning for authentication failures: proving identity incorrectly, weakly, or with recoverable/brute-forceable credentials.

When to Use / When Not to Use

Use when:

  • Login, signup, MFA, password reset, magic links, API keys, service accounts, or “auth disabled in prod” flags.
  • After AXguard hits auth.*, secrets.*, or weak password hashing (crypto.*).
  • Distinguishing “who are you?” issues from “what may you do?” (authorization-analysis).

Do not use when:

  • The bug is purely object ownership after a valid login (use authorization-analysis).
  • Token cryptography details dominate (prefer jwt-security / oauth-security after establishing auth flow).

Security Concepts

Authentication binds a principal to a session/token. Failures include missing auth, guessable credentials, weak recovery, broken MFA, and hard-coded secrets. Rate limits and lockouts are part of auth, not optional UX.

Threat Model

Attacker goals:

  1. Credential stuffing / password spraying into account takeover.
  2. Bypass MFA or reset flows.
  3. Use hard-coded or leaked service credentials.
  4. Authenticate as another user via flawed token issuance.

Analysis Workflow

  1. Inventory auth entry points (password, SSO, API keys, device codes).
  2. Confirm password storage uses modern KDFs (Argon2/bcrypt/scrypt) — not MD5/SHA1 for passwords.
  3. Review rate limits, lockout, and bot resistance on login/reset.
  4. Trace account recovery: token entropy, expiry, one-time use, notification.
  5. Check MFA enforceability for sensitive roles; detect backup-code weaknesses.
  6. Hunt hard-coded credentials and auth-bypass flags (if DEBUG: login as admin).
  7. Hand session cookies to session-security; JWT/OAuth stacks to those skills.

Evidence Requirements

  • Auth handler / config location
  • Specific weakness (storage, bypass, recovery, rate limit)
  • Affected identity class (user/admin/service)
  • Impact: account takeover plausibility

False Positive Controls

  • Test-only backdoors clearly excluded from production builds
  • Intentionally public endpoints
  • Placeholder secrets in docs not deployed (still flag if ship risk)

Remediation

  1. Strong password KDF + breached-password checks where appropriate.
  2. Rate-limit and monitor auth endpoints; secure recovery tokens.
  3. MFA for privileged accounts; phishing-resistant factors when warranted.
  4. Remove hard-coded credentials; use secret managers (secrets-detection).
  5. Fail closed on auth errors; consistent responses to reduce user enumeration where feasible.

Verification

Map auth flows → Fix storage/bypass/limits → Re-run axguard → Confirm no prod bypass flags

Related Skills

  • session-security, jwt-security, oauth-security
  • authorization-analysis, secrets-detection
  • security-triage, security-remediation

Framework Mapping

  • CWE-287, CWE-798
  • OWASP A07:2021 Identification and Authentication Failures
  • OWASP API2:2023 Broken Authentication

References

Research Provenance

Primary sources:

  • OWASP A07:2021; OWASP API2:2023; CWE-287; CWE-798 (accessed 2026-09-15)

Secondary / internal:

  • AXGuard rules/auth.json, rules/secrets.json, rules/crypto.json, /axguard-auth
  • AwareXone Agentic-Bug-Hunter authentication methodology (concepts only; not copied)

Datasets:

  • UVID HF dataset — category linkage concepts only (MIT license metadata review 2026-09-15)

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.