AIToday
AI Coding AssistantsAI Safety & AlignmentZenn AI/MLPublished: Oct 26, 2026, 01:00 JST

Cloudflare security-audit-skill finds 18 candidates, 0 confirmed bugs

Send on LINE
Cloudflare security-audit-skill finds 18 candidates, 0 confirmed bugs

3 Key Points

  1. What happened

    On a personal disaster-supply app that had passed a 253-item OWASP ASVS review two weeks earlier, Cloudflare's skill surfaced 18 candidate issues; a second AI rejected 5, left 13 needing more checks, and confirmed 0 vulnerabilities.

  2. Why it matters

    The second AI's job is to challenge rather than trust the finder ("this candidate was not written by you. Disprove it"), and the report itself contained errors such as pointing to test files that don't exist, so raw AI findings appear to need human follow-up.

Not sure about something? Ask the AI

Questions and answers are published on this page.

Summaries like this, every morning.

Context & Analysis

The run is an unusually concrete look at how a two-AI audit behaves in practice. The finder produced 18 candidates on a codebase of 255 web-side TypeScript files and 18 API routes, and 5 were dropped once a second AI tried to knock them down. But the human still had work: the report contained mistakes such as pointing to test files that do not exist, and 7 descriptions had to be corrected.

The setup itself shaped what could be found. The developer excluded the docs/ folder that held the earlier ASVS judgment records, to keep the audit independent, but that folder also held the design documents needed to judge specifications. The scope covered only the web side, so the mobile app was never checked.

Compared with the earlier 253-item ASVS review, which checked requirements one by one, this skill traces code paths looking for risky routes. It overlapped with known issues, raised paths not directly examined before, and showed that some explanatory notes from the ASVS record applied to only part of the processing. The pass verdict did not change, but the notes needed revisiting. The 13 open items are being triaged into three groups: deciding specifications, checking cloud settings, and reproducing behavior locally.

FAQ
How does the second AI check the findings?
It receives the candidate claim and evidence, but rereads the quoted code itself, and its prompt opens with "this candidate was not written by you. Disprove it." The review runs without modifying source code or executing the app.
Did anything get confirmed?
No. Of the 18 candidates, 5 were rejected, 13 needed additional checking, and 0 vulnerabilities were confirmed. The developer notes this does not prove the app is safe.
Why weren't the 13 items settled by running the app?
The audit was done without executing the code, and no candidate was blocked only by that limitation. Real cloud settings, external service behavior and whether the spec allows an operation still required checking.
Send on LINE

AI news that matters for your work, delivered every morning.

Pick your industry and the AI tools you use, and get news related to your work every day.

Free · 30 seconds with Google · unsubscribe anytimeWhat is AIToday? →

Ask AI

Ask AI anything about this article. The AI reads this article, earlier AIToday articles, and Wikipedia, and cites its sources. Q&As are published on this page for other readers too.

Questions and answers are published on this page.

Related Articles

Next articleAI wearables roundup: Bee, Friend, Muse Charm and more