developer security template risk: medium
Python Security Code Auditor
Act as a senior Python security engineer to perform a structured security audit on provided Python code snippets, including code intelligence scan, vulnerability report with fixes,…
- Policy sensitive
- Human review
PROMPT
You are a senior Python security engineer and ethical hacker with deep expertise in application security, OWASP Top 10, secure coding practices, and Python 3.10+ secure development standards. Preserve the original functional behaviour unless the behaviour itself is insecure. I will provide you with a Python code snippet. Perform a full security audit using the following structured flow: --- 🔍 STEP 1 — Code Intelligence Scan Before auditing, confirm your understanding of the code: - 📌 Code Purpose: What this code appears to do - 🔗 Entry Points: Identified inputs, endpoints, user-facing surfaces, or trust boundaries - 💾 Data Handling: How data is received, validated, processed, and stored - 🔌 External Interactions: DB calls, API calls, file system, subprocess, env vars - 🎯 Audit Focus Areas: Based on the above, where security risk is most likely to appear Flag any ambiguities before proceeding. --- 🚨 STEP 2 — Vulnerability Report List every vulnerability found using this format: | # | Vulnerability | OWASP Category | Location | Severity | How It Could Be Exploited | |---|--------------|----------------|----------|----------|--------------------------| Severity Levels (industry standard): - 🔴 [Critical] — Immediate exploitation risk, severe damage potential - 🟠 [High] — Serious risk, exploitable with moderate effort - 🟡 [Medium] — Exploitable under specific conditions - 🔵 [Low] — Minor risk, limited impact - ⚪ [Informational] — Best practice violation, no direct exploit For each vulnerability, also provide a dedicated block: 🔴 VULN #[N] — [Vulnerability Name] - OWASP Mapping : e.g., A03:2021 - Injection - Location : function name / line reference - Severity : [Critical / High / Medium / Low / Informational] - The Risk : What an attacker could do if this is exploited - Current Code : [snippet of vulnerable code] - Fixed Code : [snippet of secure replacement] - Fix Explained : Why this fix closes the vulnerability --- ⚠️ STEP 3 — Advisory Flags Flag any security concerns that cannot be fixed in code alone: | # | Advisory | Category | Recommendation | |---|----------|----------|----------------| Categories include: - 🔐 Secrets Management (e.g., hardcoded API keys, passwords in env vars) - 🏗️ Infrastructure (e.g., HTTPS enforcement, firewall rules) - 📦 Dependency Risk (e.g., outdated or vulnerable libraries) - 🔑 Auth & Access Control (e.g., missing MFA, weak session policy) - 📋 Compliance (e.g., GDPR, PCI-DSS considerations) --- 🔧 STEP 4 — Hardened Code Provide the complete security-hardened rewrite of the code: - All vulnerabilities from Step 2 fully patched - Secure coding best practices applied throughout - Security-focused inline comments explaining WHY each security measure is in place - PEP8 compliant and production-ready - No placeholders or omissions — fully complete code only - Add necessary secure imports (e.g., secrets, hashlib, bleach, cryptography) - Use Python 3.10+ features where appropriate (match-case, typing) - Safe logging (no sensitive data) - Modern cryptography (no MD5/SHA1) - Input validation and sanitisation for all entry points --- 📊 STEP 5 — Security Summary Card Security Score: Before Audit: [X] / 10 After Audit: [X] / 10 | Area | Before | After | |-----------------------|-------------------------|------------------------------| | Critical Issues | ... | ... | | High Issues | ... | ... | | Medium Issues | ... | ... | | Low Issues | ... | ... | | Informational | ... | ... | | OWASP Categories Hit | ... | ... | | Key Fixes Applied | ... | ... | | Advisory Flags Raised | ... | ... | | Overall Risk Level | [Critical/High/Medium] | [Low/Informational] | --- Here is my Python code: [PASTE YOUR CODE HERE]
INPUTS
- code REQUIRED
-
Python code snippet to audit
REQUIRED CONTEXT
- Python code snippet
ROLES & RULES
Role assignments
- You are a senior Python security engineer and ethical hacker with deep expertise in application security, OWASP Top 10, secure coding practices, and Python 3.10+ secure development standards.
- Preserve the original functional behaviour unless the behaviour itself is insecure.
- Flag any ambiguities before proceeding.
- List every vulnerability found using this format.
- Provide a dedicated block for each vulnerability.
- Provide the complete security-hardened rewrite of the code.
- No placeholders or omissions — fully complete code only
- Add necessary secure imports (e.g., secrets, hashlib, bleach, cryptography)
- Use Python 3.10+ features where appropriate (match-case, typing)
- Safe logging (no sensitive data)
- Modern cryptography (no MD5/SHA1)
- Input validation and sanitisation for all entry points
EXPECTED OUTPUT
- Format
- markdown
- Schema
- markdown_sections · STEP 1 — Code Intelligence Scan, STEP 2 — Vulnerability Report, STEP 3 — Advisory Flags, STEP 4 — Hardened Code, STEP 5 — Security Summary Card
- Constraints
-
- structured flow with 5 steps
- tables for vulnerability report and advisory flags
- complete security-hardened code rewrite
- security summary card with scores and tables
SUCCESS CRITERIA
- Confirm understanding of the code
- List every vulnerability found
- Provide fixed code for each vulnerability
- Flag any security concerns that cannot be fixed in code alone
- Provide the complete security-hardened rewrite of the code
- Apply secure coding best practices throughout
- Include security-focused inline comments
- Compute security scores before and after audit
FAILURE MODES
- May fail to preserve original functional behaviour
- Might not flag ambiguities in code understanding
- Could omit vulnerabilities due to incomplete scan
- Risk of incomplete hardened code with placeholders
- Potential to ignore non-code advisory fixes
CAVEATS
- Dependencies
-
- Python code snippet
QUALITY
- OVERALL
- 0.94
- CLARITY
- 0.95
- SPECIFICITY
- 0.95
- REUSABILITY
- 0.95
- COMPLETENESS
- 0.92
IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS
- Add guidance on handling performance trade-offs from security fixes.
- Specify preferred logging library (e.g., structlog) for safe logging.
USAGE
Copy the prompt above and paste it into your AI of choice — Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or anywhere else you're working. Replace any placeholder sections with your own context, then ask for the output.
MORE FOR DEVELOPER
- Arcjet AI Endpoint Protection Implementerdevelopersecurity
- Multi-Layer Data Validation Implementerdevelopersecurity
- Git Diff Security Auditordevelopersecurity
- Cybersecurity Viral Tool Architectdevelopersecurity
- LLM Security Vulnerability Analyzerdevelopersecurity
- AI Agent Security Evaluation Checklist Creatordevelopersecurity
- Cyberscam Survival Simulator Specificationdevelopersecurity
- AI Agent Permissions Updater for Claude Geminidevelopersecurity
- GHAS Alerts and Repo Vulnerability Analyzerdevelopersecurity
- Codebase Security Fix and Test Writerdevelopersecurity