288 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
288 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
# Security Integration Specialist Quality Checklist
|
|
|
|
## Checklist Overview
|
|
**Checklist Name:** Security Integration Specialist Quality Validation
|
|
**Version:** 1.0
|
|
**Purpose:** Ensure comprehensive security analysis and implementation quality
|
|
**Scope:** Cross-platform security assessment and remediation
|
|
**Review Type:** Security Quality Assurance
|
|
|
|
## Section 1: Security Architecture Assessment (Weight: 20%)
|
|
|
|
### 1.1 Threat Modeling Completeness
|
|
- [ ] **Comprehensive Asset Identification** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- All system assets identified and catalogued
|
|
- Data flow diagrams created and validated
|
|
- Trust boundaries clearly defined
|
|
- Entry points and attack vectors mapped
|
|
- Threat actors and motivations identified
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Attack Vector Analysis** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- STRIDE methodology applied comprehensively
|
|
- Attack trees developed for critical assets
|
|
- Risk likelihood and impact assessed
|
|
- Mitigation strategies identified for each threat
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Security Control Mapping** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Existing security controls documented
|
|
- Control effectiveness evaluated
|
|
- Security gaps identified and prioritized
|
|
- Defense-in-depth strategy validated
|
|
|
|
### 1.2 Architecture Security Design
|
|
- [ ] **Authentication Architecture** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Multi-factor authentication strategy defined
|
|
- Identity provider integration assessed
|
|
- Session management security validated
|
|
- Password policy and enforcement reviewed
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Authorization Framework** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Role-based access control (RBAC) implemented
|
|
- Attribute-based access control (ABAC) considered
|
|
- Principle of least privilege applied
|
|
- Access control matrix validated
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Data Protection Strategy** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Data classification scheme implemented
|
|
- Encryption at rest and in transit validated
|
|
- Key management strategy defined
|
|
- Data retention and disposal policies established
|
|
|
|
## Section 2: Vulnerability Assessment Quality (Weight: 25%)
|
|
|
|
### 2.1 Static Code Analysis
|
|
- [ ] **Automated Scanning Coverage** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- All code repositories scanned
|
|
- Multiple SAST tools utilized
|
|
- Custom security rules implemented
|
|
- False positive analysis completed
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Manual Code Review** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Security-focused code review conducted
|
|
- Business logic vulnerabilities identified
|
|
- Framework-specific security issues assessed
|
|
- Code quality and security patterns validated
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Dependency Analysis** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- All dependencies scanned for vulnerabilities
|
|
- Transitive dependencies analyzed
|
|
- License compliance verified
|
|
- Update strategy for vulnerable components defined
|
|
|
|
### 2.2 Dynamic Security Testing
|
|
- [ ] **Penetration Testing** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Comprehensive penetration testing performed
|
|
- OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities tested
|
|
- Business logic testing included
|
|
- Social engineering vectors assessed
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **API Security Testing** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- All API endpoints tested
|
|
- Authentication and authorization tested
|
|
- Input validation and sanitization verified
|
|
- Rate limiting and abuse prevention tested
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Infrastructure Testing** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Network security configuration tested
|
|
- Server hardening validated
|
|
- Cloud security posture assessed
|
|
- Container and orchestration security verified
|
|
|
|
## Section 3: Technology-Specific Security Implementation (Weight: 20%)
|
|
|
|
### 3.1 Frontend Security (React/TypeScript)
|
|
- [ ] **XSS Prevention** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Content Security Policy (CSP) implemented
|
|
- Input sanitization using DOMPurify
|
|
- Template injection prevention validated
|
|
- DOM manipulation security verified
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Authentication Security** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Secure token storage (httpOnly cookies)
|
|
- JWT implementation security validated
|
|
- Session management security verified
|
|
- OAuth 2.0 implementation assessed
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Client-Side Data Protection** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Sensitive data handling validated
|
|
- Local storage security assessed
|
|
- Form validation and sanitization implemented
|
|
- HTTPS enforcement verified
|
|
|
|
### 3.2 Backend Security (Node.js/Python/.NET)
|
|
- [ ] **Input Validation** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- SQL injection prevention implemented
|
|
- NoSQL injection prevention validated
|
|
- Command injection prevention verified
|
|
- Path traversal prevention implemented
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Authentication & Authorization** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Secure password hashing (bcrypt, scrypt)
|
|
- JWT token security implementation
|
|
- Role-based access control implemented
|
|
- Session security validated
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Security Headers & Middleware** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Helmet.js or equivalent implemented
|
|
- CORS configuration security validated
|
|
- Rate limiting middleware implemented
|
|
- Security logging and monitoring enabled
|
|
|
|
### 3.3 Database Security
|
|
- [ ] **Access Control** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Database user privileges minimized
|
|
- Connection security (SSL/TLS) enabled
|
|
- Database firewall rules implemented
|
|
- Audit logging enabled
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Data Protection** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Sensitive data encryption at rest
|
|
- Backup encryption implemented
|
|
- Data masking for non-production environments
|
|
- Secure key management implemented
|
|
|
|
## Section 4: Compliance and Risk Management (Weight: 15%)
|
|
|
|
### 4.1 Regulatory Compliance
|
|
- [ ] **GDPR Compliance** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Data protection impact assessment completed
|
|
- Privacy by design principles implemented
|
|
- Data subject rights mechanisms implemented
|
|
- Consent management system validated
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Industry Standards Compliance** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- OWASP guidelines followed
|
|
- NIST framework alignment verified
|
|
- SOC 2 controls implemented (if applicable)
|
|
- PCI DSS compliance verified (if applicable)
|
|
|
|
### 4.2 Risk Assessment
|
|
- [ ] **Risk Quantification** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Business impact analysis completed
|
|
- Risk likelihood assessment performed
|
|
- Risk scoring methodology applied
|
|
- Risk tolerance alignment verified
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Risk Mitigation Strategy** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Mitigation controls identified
|
|
- Residual risk assessment completed
|
|
- Risk acceptance documentation prepared
|
|
- Continuous monitoring plan established
|
|
|
|
## Section 5: Security Testing and Validation (Weight: 10%)
|
|
|
|
### 5.1 Security Test Coverage
|
|
- [ ] **Unit Security Tests** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Authentication function tests implemented
|
|
- Authorization logic tests created
|
|
- Input validation tests comprehensive
|
|
- Cryptographic function tests validated
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Integration Security Tests** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- End-to-end security flow tests
|
|
- Cross-component security tests
|
|
- Third-party integration security tests
|
|
- API security integration tests
|
|
|
|
### 5.2 Continuous Security Monitoring
|
|
- [ ] **Security Monitoring Implementation** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- SIEM system integration completed
|
|
- Security event correlation rules defined
|
|
- Alerting and notification system configured
|
|
- Incident response procedures documented
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Security Metrics and Reporting** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Security KPIs defined and tracked
|
|
- Regular security reporting implemented
|
|
- Trend analysis and forecasting enabled
|
|
- Executive dashboard created
|
|
|
|
## Section 6: Documentation and Communication (Weight: 10%)
|
|
|
|
### 6.1 Security Documentation
|
|
- [ ] **Security Architecture Documentation** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Security design documents complete
|
|
- Threat model documentation comprehensive
|
|
- Security control documentation detailed
|
|
- Risk assessment documentation thorough
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Implementation Guidance** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Secure coding guidelines documented
|
|
- Security configuration guides created
|
|
- Incident response procedures documented
|
|
- Security training materials developed
|
|
|
|
### 6.2 Stakeholder Communication
|
|
- [ ] **Technical Communication** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Clear technical security recommendations
|
|
- Implementation guidance provided
|
|
- Risk communication effective
|
|
- Cross-team collaboration facilitated
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Executive Reporting** (Score: ___/10)
|
|
- Business impact clearly communicated
|
|
- Risk levels appropriately conveyed
|
|
- ROI of security investments demonstrated
|
|
- Strategic security recommendations provided
|
|
|
|
## Quality Scoring Matrix
|
|
|
|
### Overall Quality Score Calculation
|
|
```
|
|
Total Score = (Section 1 0.20) + (Section 2 0.25) + (Section 3 0.20) +
|
|
(Section 4 0.15) + (Section 5 0.10) + (Section 6 0.10)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Quality Rating Thresholds
|
|
- **Excellent (9.0-10.0):** Exceptional security implementation with comprehensive coverage
|
|
- **Very Good (8.0-8.9):** Strong security implementation with minor improvements needed
|
|
- **Good (7.0-7.9):** Solid security implementation with some areas for enhancement
|
|
- **Satisfactory (6.0-6.9):** Adequate security implementation requiring improvements
|
|
- **Needs Improvement (5.0-5.9):** Security implementation requires significant enhancements
|
|
- **Unsatisfactory (<5.0):** Security implementation requires major rework
|
|
|
|
## Critical Security Requirements (Must Pass)
|
|
- [ ] **No Critical Vulnerabilities:** Zero critical security vulnerabilities present
|
|
- [ ] **Authentication Security:** Secure authentication mechanisms implemented
|
|
- [ ] **Data Protection:** Sensitive data properly encrypted and protected
|
|
- [ ] **Input Validation:** Comprehensive input validation implemented
|
|
- [ ] **Security Headers:** All required security headers configured
|
|
- [ ] **Access Control:** Proper authorization mechanisms implemented
|
|
- [ ] **Compliance Requirements:** All applicable compliance requirements met
|
|
|
|
## Remediation Tracking
|
|
| Finding ID | Severity | Description | Assigned To | Due Date | Status |
|
|
|------------|----------|-------------|-------------|----------|---------|
|
|
| SEC-001 | Critical | [Description] | [Assignee] | [Date] | [Status] |
|
|
| SEC-002 | High | [Description] | [Assignee] | [Date] | [Status] |
|
|
| SEC-003 | Medium | [Description] | [Assignee] | [Date] | [Status] |
|
|
|
|
## Review and Approval
|
|
|
|
### Quality Review
|
|
- **Reviewer Name:** [Name]
|
|
- **Review Date:** [Date]
|
|
- **Overall Quality Score:** ___/10.0
|
|
- **Quality Rating:** [Excellent/Very Good/Good/Satisfactory/Needs Improvement/Unsatisfactory]
|
|
|
|
### Security Approval
|
|
- **Security Specialist:** [Name] - [Date] - [Signature]
|
|
- **Technical Architect:** [Name] - [Date] - [Signature]
|
|
- **Security Manager:** [Name] - [Date] - [Signature]
|
|
|
|
### Recommendations for Improvement
|
|
1. [Recommendation 1]
|
|
2. [Recommendation 2]
|
|
3. [Recommendation 3]
|
|
|
|
### Next Review Date
|
|
**Scheduled Review:** [Date]
|
|
**Review Frequency:** [Monthly/Quarterly/As Needed]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**Checklist Version:** 1.0
|
|
**Last Updated:** [Date]
|
|
**Document Owner:** Security Integration Specialist
|
|
**Quality Framework Integration:** BMAD Method Quality Standards
|