Skip These

These are usually low-signal or out of bounty scope unless the program says otherwise:

• Local-only pickle.loads, torch.load, or equivalent with no remote path
• eval() or exec() in CLI-only tooling
• shell=True on fully hardcoded commands
• Missing security headers by themselves
• Generic rate-limiting complaints without exploit impact
• Self-XSS requiring the victim to paste code manually
• CI/CD injection that is not part of the target program scope
• Demo, example, or test-only code

Workflow

1. Check scope first: program rules, SECURITY.md, disclosure channel, and exclusions.
2. Find real entrypoints: HTTP handlers, uploads, background jobs, webhooks, parsers, and integration endpoints.
3. Run static tooling where it helps, but treat it as triage input only.
4. Read the real code path end to end.
5. Prove user control reaches a meaningful sink.
6. Confirm exploitability and impact with the smallest safe PoC possible.
7. Check for duplicates before drafting a report.

Example Triage Loop

semgrep --config=auto --severity=ERROR --severity=WARNING --json

Then manually filter:

• drop tests, demos, fixtures, vendored code
• drop local-only or non-reachable paths
• keep only findings with a clear network or user-controlled route

Report Structure

## Description
[What the vulnerability is and why it matters]

## Vulnerable Code
[File path, line range, and a small snippet]

## Proof of Concept
[Minimal working request or script]

## Impact
[What the attacker can achieve]

## Affected Version
[Version, commit, or deployment target tested]

Quality Gate

Before submitting:

• The code path is reachable from a real user or network boundary
• The input is genuinely user-controlled
• The sink is meaningful and exploitable
• The PoC works
• The issue is not already covered by an advisory, CVE, or open ticket
• The target is actually in scope for the bounty program

santa-method

通过双评审智能体对结果进行对抗式校验，提升输出发布前的可靠性

security-review

帮助开发者在认证、输入处理、密钥和敏感功能开发中进行系统安全审查