Python Security Review

"Security is not a product, but a process." — Bruce Schneier

Core Philosophy

Shared across the dotnet / python / php / rust security reviews — same values, language-specific threats.

Workflow

Shared skeleton: DETECT → SCAN → EXECUTIVE SUMMARY → GRADED FINDINGS.

DETECT     Framework (FastAPI/Django/Flask + version), entry points (routes, views, tasks, CLIs),
           and the data stores / external calls in scope.

SCAN       Walk the Python Threat Checklist below, one OWASP category at a time. Gather evidence:
             bandit -r <pkg>            # static security analysis
             pip-audit                  # known CVEs in dependencies
             grep -rn "yaml.load(\|shell=True\|format(.*SELECT" <pkg>
           Every issue becomes a finding with file:line, OWASP category, and severity.

EXEC SUMMARY  Manager-friendly: risk grade, count by severity, top 3 risks in plain language.

FINDINGS      Technical table: severity · location · OWASP · finding · remediation.

Python Threat Checklist (language-specific)

Full per-category checklist + grounding query map: owasp python checklist.

State Block

<security-review-state>
language: python
mode: DETECT | SCAN | EXEC-SUMMARY | FINDINGS | COMPLETE
detected: [framework+version | entry points | data stores]
owasp_covered: [A01..A10 progress]
findings: [critical:N high:N medium:N low:N]
last_action: [what was just done]
next_action: [what should happen next]
</security-review-state>

Output Template

Shared across all four security reviews. Executive summary template: executive summary.

## Security Review: [project] (Python)
**Framework**: [FastAPI/Django/Flask] | **Scope**: [paths] | **Risk grade**: [A–F]

### Executive Summary (manager-friendly)
[2–3 sentences: overall posture, the most serious risk in plain language, recommended next step.]
Findings: Critical [N] · High [N] · Medium [N] · Low [N]

### Technical Findings
| Severity | Location | OWASP | Finding | Remediation |
|----------|----------|-------|---------|-------------|
| CRITICAL | file:line | A03 | [pattern] | [fix] |

**Top 3 priorities**: 1. … 2. … 3. …

Risk grade: A no critical/high · B no critical, ≤2 high · C no critical, multiple high · D 1+ critical · F systemic (injection + secrets in code + broken access control).

AI Discipline Rules

• Evidence or it is not a finding. Run bandit/pip-audit; cite file:line and the OWASP category. No speculative findings.
• Detect the framework first. Django escapes templates and ships CSRF; FastAPI validates via Pydantic — confirm these are used, not bypassed, before flagging.
• Severity reflects exploitability + impact, not how unusual the pattern looks.
• Architecture, not here. Structural/maintainability issues belong to python-architecture-checklist — note and route.
• Federal/gov context → escalate. If NIST/FIPS/CUI/DOE applies, run security-review-federal after this base review.

Integration with Other Skills

• security-review-federal — Federal/gov overlay (NIST 800-53, FIPS, CUI, POA&M) applied on top of this base review.
• python-architecture-checklist — Companion for structure/maintainability; run first for context.
• supply-chain-audit — Deeper dependency/CVE and license analysis beyond pip-audit.
• dotnet / php / rust-security-review — Sibling skills sharing this exact Core Values + workflow + output.