API Security

SkillSecurity

OWASP API Top 10 for HTTP, GraphQL, and gRPC endpoints: input validation, route rate limiting, mass assignment, response caching, and gateway-versus-service control placement. Use when generating or reviewing HTTP handlers, GraphQL resolvers, gRPC service methods, or any API endpoint change.

Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.

Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.

Then ask your AI: use the API Security skill

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by shieldnet-360/secure-vibe in skills/api-security/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.

Rules (for AI agents)

ALWAYS

  • Require authentication on every non-public endpoint. Default to authenticated; opt out for genuinely public routes by explicit annotation.
  • Consult auth-security for who the caller is and what they may touch. It owns the credential (algorithm pinning, expiry, lifetime, session, CSRF) and the permission (object-level BOLA/IDOR checks, multi-key routes, streaming subjects, function-level role gating). Any endpoint that reads or writes a resource by id needs it; this skill covers everything else about the endpoint.
  • Validate all request inputs against an explicit schema (JSON Schema, Pydantic, Zod, validator/v10 struct tags). Reject early; never propagate untrusted input deeper.
  • Enforce rate limits at the route level for authentication endpoints, password reset, and any expensive operation.
  • Consult error-handling-security for what an error response may carry. It owns the boundary between what crosses to the client and what stays in the log, including presence-of-record disclosure (User not found vs Invalid credentials).
  • Include Cache-Control: no-store on responses containing personal or sensitive data.

NEVER

  • Use sequential integer IDs in URLs for resources accessible across tenants. Use UUIDs or unguessable opaque IDs.
  • Mass-assign request bodies directly to ORM models (User(**request.json)) — this enables privilege escalation when the model has admin fields the user shouldn't control.
  • Key a rate-limit / lockout counter on a client-controllable header (leftmost X-Forwarded-For, X-Real-IP, Forwarded) — rotating it yields a fresh bucket per request and defeats the limit. Derive the client IP from the trusted-proxy hop count (or key on the authenticated user), and fail closed on limiter error.
  • Use HTTP GET for any state-changing operation — GET should be safe and idempotent.
  • Rely on network position (IP allowlist, VPN, private subnet, "internal only", a WAF/edge rule) as the only control on a sensitive endpoint. Reachability is not authentication: the moment there's an SSRF, a compromised internal host, a tenant on the network, or a boundary change, an unauthenticated "internal" endpoint (permission_classes = [AllowAny], no RequireAuth) is wide open. Enforce auth/authz at the service itself, behind any network control.
  • Place security controls (auth, field-stripping, CSRF, rate-limit, input validation) only at a gateway / BFF / proxy while the backend service is also directly reachable. An attacker calls the service directly and bypasses every proxy-layer control — controls must live at the service that owns the data. (A common variant: the gateway checks that a JWT is present but the service never checks the caller's role or object-level ownership — the service reads the subject id from the body/path/query and trusts it.)

KNOWN FALSE POSITIVES

  • Public marketing-site endpoints serving anonymous traffic legitimately have no auth and no rate limits beyond the load balancer.
  • Sequential IDs in paths are fine for genuinely public, non-tenant-scoped resources (e.g. blog post slugs, public product catalog items).
  • Health-check endpoints (/healthz, /ready) intentionally bypass auth.
  • A network control (mTLS service mesh, NetworkPolicy, private ingress) is fine as defense-in-depth — the anti-pattern is only when it's the sole control and the service itself authenticates nothing.
  • Mutual-TLS / SPIFFE workload identity between services is authentication (a cryptographic caller identity), not mere network position — mTLS-authenticated service-to-service calls are fine even on a private network.

Context (for humans)

The OWASP API Top 10 differs from the web Top 10 mostly because APIs have weaker defaults: they often skip CSRF, they expose object IDs directly, and they tend to trust developer-provided client-side state. This skill codifies the most common high-impact mistakes.

A recurring architectural failure is trusting the perimeter instead of the service: a BFF/gateway enforces auth, strips fields, and checks CSRF, while the core service is also directly reachable and authenticates nothing because it's "internal". Anyone who can reach the core service — via SSRF, a foothold inside the allowlisted network, or simply a public DNS name that resolves to the same backend — bypasses every perimeter control. Network position is a mitigation, not an authentication boundary; the owning service must enforce auth/authz itself.

References

Signals

GitHub stars
22
Last commit
Aug 2026
Advanced
Catalog kind
skill
Gateway key
api-security-shieldnet-360
Source
github.com/shieldnet-360/secure-vibe