You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The skill currently maps SAST coverage to OWASP ASVS 4.0.3 and CWE Top 25 2024. OWASP has released ASVS 5.0.0 as the latest stable release, and MITRE/CWE has published the 2025 CWE Top 25. A SAST configuration can look adequately mapped under the older framework set while missing changed ASVS requirement IDs, updated topic organization, or newly ranked CWE priorities.
This is especially risky for SAST tuning because the skill uses framework mapping to decide whether missing coverage is High/Medium and how CI gates should behave. Stale ASVS/CWE mappings can produce both false confidence and noisy findings.
Coverage Gaps
Missed variant 1: ASVS 4.0.3 controls are treated as the current baseline
Frameworks applied: OWASP ASVS 4.0.3, CWE Top 25
Control Reference: ASVS V.X.X / CWE-XXX
Why it should be caught:
Reports generated after ASVS 5.0.0 should identify whether they are using the current ASVS baseline or an intentional legacy 4.0.3 mapping. Otherwise teams may tune rules against obsolete control IDs and miss the need to remap findings.
Missed variant 2: CWE Top 25 2024 ranking is hardcoded
Map the active SAST rule set against CWE Top 25 (2024)
Why it should be caught:
CWE Top 25 is data-driven and changes year to year. The 2025 list is now the current published Top 25. SAST coverage matrices and severity defaults should record the CWE Top 25 year/source date, because rank changes affect which rule gaps should be treated as High versus Medium.
Missed variant 3: rule-pack freshness is not tied to framework version
- p/owasp-top-ten
- p/cwe-top-25
Why it should be caught:
Managed Semgrep/CodeQL rule packs can change independently from ASVS and CWE releases. The review should capture rule-pack source, version/date, active languages, enabled/disabled state, and mapping confidence instead of assuming a registry alias currently implements the desired ASVS/CWE baseline.
Edge Cases
Some audit engagements may still require ASVS 4.0.3. The skill should support legacy mode only when the requested framework version and date are explicitly recorded.
SAST cannot fully verify many ASVS controls. The refreshed output should distinguish covered by SAST, partially covered, manual/dynamic evidence required, and not evaluated.
A rule-pack alias such as p/cwe-top-25 may point to a moving target. That can be useful operationally, but reports need the retrieved rule-pack version or date.
Remediation Quality
Fix resolves the vulnerability
Fix doesn't introduce new security issues
Fix doesn't break functionality
Issues found: Refresh sast-config to support OWASP ASVS 5.0.0 and CWE Top 25 2025, add explicit framework-version/source-date fields, preserve legacy ASVS 4.0.3 mode only when scoped, and add rule-pack freshness/mapping-confidence output fields.
Comparison to Other Tools
Tool
Catches this?
Notes
OWASP ASVS 5.0.0
Yes
Current stable ASVS baseline for application security verification.
CWE Top 25 2025
Yes
Current MITRE/CWE Top 25 list for dangerous software weaknesses.
Semgrep / CodeQL
Partial
Rule packs can cover many weaknesses, but the skill must record version/date and mapping confidence.
Skill Being Reviewed
Skill name:
sast-configSkill path:
skills/devsecops/sast-config/False Positive Analysis
Benign SAST configuration that can be misclassified with stale framework mappings:
Why this can be misleading:
The skill currently maps SAST coverage to OWASP ASVS 4.0.3 and CWE Top 25 2024. OWASP has released ASVS 5.0.0 as the latest stable release, and MITRE/CWE has published the 2025 CWE Top 25. A SAST configuration can look adequately mapped under the older framework set while missing changed ASVS requirement IDs, updated topic organization, or newly ranked CWE priorities.
This is especially risky for SAST tuning because the skill uses framework mapping to decide whether missing coverage is High/Medium and how CI gates should behave. Stale ASVS/CWE mappings can produce both false confidence and noisy findings.
Coverage Gaps
Missed variant 1: ASVS 4.0.3 controls are treated as the current baseline
Why it should be caught:
Reports generated after ASVS 5.0.0 should identify whether they are using the current ASVS baseline or an intentional legacy 4.0.3 mapping. Otherwise teams may tune rules against obsolete control IDs and miss the need to remap findings.
Missed variant 2: CWE Top 25 2024 ranking is hardcoded
Why it should be caught:
CWE Top 25 is data-driven and changes year to year. The 2025 list is now the current published Top 25. SAST coverage matrices and severity defaults should record the CWE Top 25 year/source date, because rank changes affect which rule gaps should be treated as High versus Medium.
Missed variant 3: rule-pack freshness is not tied to framework version
Why it should be caught:
Managed Semgrep/CodeQL rule packs can change independently from ASVS and CWE releases. The review should capture rule-pack source, version/date, active languages, enabled/disabled state, and mapping confidence instead of assuming a registry alias currently implements the desired ASVS/CWE baseline.
Edge Cases
appsec-engineerrole bundle. This review is specific to thesast-configskill's frontmatter, SAST coverage matrix, output format, and ASVS/CWE mapping.covered by SAST,partially covered,manual/dynamic evidence required, andnot evaluated.p/cwe-top-25may point to a moving target. That can be useful operationally, but reports need the retrieved rule-pack version or date.Remediation Quality
sast-configto support OWASP ASVS 5.0.0 and CWE Top 25 2025, add explicit framework-version/source-date fields, preserve legacy ASVS 4.0.3 mode only when scoped, and add rule-pack freshness/mapping-confidence output fields.Comparison to Other Tools
Overall Assessment
Strengths:
Needs improvement:
manual evidence required/not evaluable by SASTreason codes for ASVS controls that SAST cannot prove.Priority recommendations:
Framework version,Source date,Rule-pack version,Mapping confidence, andManual evidence requiredfields.References
Bounty Info