vuln-report

# Vulnerability Report

## Overview

Draft one disclosure-ready report for one confirmed bug. Keep the report evidence-driven, concrete, and concise. Prefer the section order and phrasing rules in [references/report-template.md](references/report-template.md).

## Workflow

1. Confirm the report is about one bug only.
2. Extract the minimum facts needed to prove the issue:
   - vulnerable component or behavior
   - attacker-controlled input or missing validation
   - preconditions and trust boundary
   - exploit result
   - practical impact
   - strongest reproduction path
   - decisive source locations and any relevant fix commit
3. Separate demonstrated facts from inference. State assumptions explicitly.
4. Draft the report using the required section order from [references/report-template.md](references/report-template.md).
5. Always embed at least one fenced code snippet from the decisive code path, and explain what each snippet proves.
6. Always convert repository file references and patch references into GitHub markdown links, and prefer embedding those links directly into the surrounding explanation instead of listing them separately.
7. Add only the optional sections that materially improve accuracy or triage value.
8. Save the final report as `report.md` inside a folder named with the bug's severity identifier (`C1`, `H1`, `M1`, etc.) followed by a lowercase hyphenated slug derived from the final report title. Use `C` for Critical, `H` for High, `M` for Medium, sequentially numbered if there are multiple bugs of the same severity. Example: `C1-cross-site-websocket-hijacking-re-enabled-by-allow-websocket/report.md`. Also, ensure the bug report title and internal references use this ID (e.g., '[C1] Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking'). Do not write reports for Low severity findings — document them in the summary table only.
9. Remove filler, hedging, and unproven claims before finalizing.

## Required Sections

Always include these sections in this order:

1. `Summary`
2. `Details`
3. `Root Cause`
4. `Proof of Concept (PoC)`
5. `Impact`

If the repository already uses `Technical Details` with `Root Cause` nested under it, preserve that local pattern. Otherwise keep `Root Cause` as its own section.

## Evidence Rules

- Include one or more fenced code snippets in the report, usually in `Details` or `Root Cause`.
- Use the smallest snippet that proves the bug.
- Introduce each cited code location with a short explanation of why it matters; do not drop raw link lists without commentary.
- Add GitHub markdown links for source files, line anchors, controllers, helpers, patch commits, or affected surfaces whenever the repository is on GitHub and the target URL is known or can be derived.
- When constructing GitHub source links, use the latest commit SHA (from `git rev-parse HEAD` or the most recent commit visible in context) instead of a branch name such as `main` or `master`, so links remain stable after future commits.
- Prefer embedding inline markdown links into explanatory sentences such as `The following code in [build_request](https://github.com/org/repo/blob/main/src/executor.rs#L10) reads attacker-controlled input without validation.`
- Keep non-GitHub standards or spec citations as normal markdown links.

## Self-Contained Rule

`report.md` is a disclosure-ready artefact. The reader must understand the vulnerability, the trace, the impact, and the reproduction without opening any sibling working file (drafts, debate transcripts, review notes, internal metadata).

- Do not write prose pointers such as `See draft.md`, `See debate.md`, `See adversarial-review.md`, `See metadata.json`, `See pN-NNN for full trace`, `See AP-NNN`, `Refer to the draft for impact analysis`, or `for the full trace see ...`. If that content is needed in the report, **inline it**.
- Do not cite internal phase IDs (`pN-NNN`, `p10-NNN`, `AP-NNN`) — these are pipeline bookkeeping, not reader-facing references.
- Sibling-file references are only allowed for runnable evidence artefacts shipped alongside the report (e.g. `poc.<ext>`, `evidence/<file>`), and only inside the Proof of Concept or Impact sections. Quote the decisive lines from logs inline rather than telling the reader to open them.
- GitHub links to source code (pinned to a commit SHA) are external evidence, not deferred narrative — those are required, not banned.
- Before finalizing, scan the draft for the banned phrasings above and rewrite any occurrence to inline the content.

## Section Rules

### Summary

Open with the vulnerable behavior, attacker control, and outcome in one short paragraph. Name the component only if it improves clarity.

### Details

Explain the code path and why the protection fails. Include relevant conditions such as auth mode, stateless mode, parser behavior, MIME confusion, or transport assumptions. Support the explanation with code snippets and GitHub markdown links to the exact source locations.

### Root Cause

State the design or implementation mistake in one focused subsection. Prefer causal language such as missing origin validation, unsafe trust in extension-derived MIME, or policy enforced only in one execution mode.

### Proof of Concept (PoC)

Use the shortest reliable reproduction. Prefer numbered steps and a runnable request, command, or code block. State the expected result.

### Impact

Describe exploitability and consequence, not just severity labels. Cover who is exposed, what an attacker gains, and which environments are most at risk.

## Optional Sections

Include an optional section only when it adds concrete triage value.

Allowed optional sections include:

- short report title at the top
- vulnerability type
- `CWE`
- `CVSS` vector or severity guidance
- attack preconditions or authentication reality
- affected surfaces or scope notes
- specification or guidance references
- patch or fix-commit metadata
- exploit constraints, non-default assumptions, or deployment qualifiers

Do not add `Affected Comp