Skills secrets-gitleaks Audit History
📦

Audit History

secrets-gitleaks - 9 audits

Version comparison

Capability and finding changes across audited versions, newest first.

VersionDateResultReview itemsChange vs previous
v9 LatestJul 23, 2026, 07:05 AM 5 confirmed3No capability change
v8 Jul 7, 2026, 10:11 PM 1 confirmed1No capability change
v7 Jul 5, 2026, 01:15 AM 1 confirmed1No capability change
v6 Jun 28, 2026, 06:25 AM 1 confirmed3No capability change
v5 Jan 16, 2026, 04:18 PM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v4 Jan 16, 2026, 04:18 PM No confirmed findings0Env variables Contains scripts
v3 Jan 10, 2026, 11:03 AM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v2 Jan 10, 2026, 11:03 AM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v1 Jan 10, 2026, 11:03 AM No confirmed findings0Baseline

Jul 23, 2026, 07:05 AM

Most static alerts are false positives caused by Markdown formatting, detector examples, placeholders, and expected CI secret references. Three static findings are confirmed, and semantic review found unredacted CI outputs, broad allowlists, mutable dependencies, and unsafe cleanup guidance. No prompt injection or live credentials were found.

13
Files scanned
3,321
Lines analyzed
12
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (5)

High
Unredacted secret reports retained as CI artifacts
Both CI templates create Gitleaks reports without redaction and retain them as artifacts, potentially exposing detected secret values to artifact readers.
The report commands visibly omit --redact, and subsequent artifact steps retain their output. Gitleaks JSON reports can include matched secret values.
High
Full secret findings may be printed to CI logs
The GitLab incremental job prints the complete findings document with jq, which can place detected credentials in broadly retained CI logs.
The command directly passes the full findings file to jq without field selection or redaction. This output is written to the job log.
High
Recommended configuration broadly suppresses detection
The balanced configuration globally excludes documentation, tests, fixtures, distributions, and common weak values, allowing real secrets in those locations to escape scanning.
The exclusions apply globally, and SKILL.md recommends this configuration. Real credentials can occur in excluded text, documentation, test, or generated files.
Medium
CI templates use mutable third-party dependencies
Workflow actions and container images use version tags or latest tags instead of immutable commits and digests, increasing upstream supply-chain exposure.
The cited dependencies use v2, v4, v8.18.0, or latest references. These names can resolve to different content after template adoption.
Medium
Test cleanup can reset a legitimate commit
The workstation test expects the secret commit to fail but then resets HEAD, which can remove the prior legitimate commit when no test commit exists.
The documented commit should be blocked, so HEAD does not advance. Running git reset HEAD~1 afterward targets the commit preceding the test.
Capability review items (3)

These are real local capabilities that may be expected for this skill, so they require review but are not counted as confirmed malicious behavior.

High
Hardcoded URL
curl -X POST https://siem.company.com/api/events \
The example posts the complete Gitleaks report to a SIEM endpoint without requiring redaction. Reports may contain detected secret values, creating disclosure risk.
High
xargs command (can execute arbitrary commands)
gitleaks detect --report-format json | jq -r '.[0] | .File, .StartLine' | xargs -I {} sh -c 'sed -n
Repository-controlled file names are substituted into sh -c without safe argument passing. Shell metacharacters in a malicious file name can execute commands.
Medium
Temp directory access
echo 'api_key = "sk_live_actual_key"' > /tmp/test_detection.py
The command overwrites a fixed path in a shared temporary directory. A local attacker could pre-create a symlink and redirect the write.

Risk Factors

🔑 Env variables (35)
🌐 Network access (26)
⚙️ External commands (50)
📁 Filesystem access (9)
Audited by: codex

Jul 7, 2026, 10:11 PM

Most static hits are expected Gitleaks documentation, regex examples, placeholder credentials, public URLs, and CI snippets. I confirmed one static issue where an xargs sh -c troubleshooting command can execute shell text using report-derived values. I also found a semantic risk where CI templates store unredacted secret scan reports as artifacts.

13
Files scanned
3,321
Lines analyzed
6
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (1)

High
Unredacted Secret Reports Stored as CI Artifacts
The CI templates generate Gitleaks JSON or SARIF reports without an explicit redaction flag and upload them as artifacts. Gitleaks reports can include sensitive secret values or metadata, so artifact storage can widen exposure.
The templates explicitly create report files and upload or retain them as artifacts, but the commands shown do not include --redact. The skill documentation itself warns that reports can contain sensitive findings.
Capability review items (1)

These are real local capabilities that may be expected for this skill, so they require review but are not counted as confirmed malicious behavior.

Medium
xargs command (can execute arbitrary commands)
gitleaks detect --report-format json | jq -r '.[0] | .File, .StartLine' | xargs -I {} sh -c 'sed -n
The troubleshooting command pipes report-derived file and line values into xargs with sh -c. A crafted filename could alter the copied shell command, although the example is not auto-executed by the skill.

Risk Factors

🔑 Env variables (35)
🌐 Network access (26)
⚙️ External commands (92)
assets/github-action.yml:102-112 assets/github-action.yml:137 assets/gitlab-ci.yml:54 assets/gitlab-ci.yml:104 assets/gitlab-ci.yml:207 assets/gitlab-ci.yml:208 references/compliance_mapping.md:334 references/false_positives.md:503 references/false_positives.md:506 references/false_positives.md:509 references/false_positives.md:425 references/false_positives.md:562 references/remediation_guide.md:310 references/remediation_guide.md:439 SKILL.md:36-49 SKILL.md:49-57 SKILL.md:57-69 SKILL.md:69-77 SKILL.md:77-85 SKILL.md:85-89 SKILL.md:89-91 SKILL.md:91-99 SKILL.md:99-112 SKILL.md:112-116 SKILL.md:116-127 SKILL.md:127-135 SKILL.md:135-141 SKILL.md:141-147 SKILL.md:147-149 SKILL.md:149-172 SKILL.md:172-174 SKILL.md:174-175 SKILL.md:175-176 SKILL.md:176-177 SKILL.md:177-185 SKILL.md:185-187 SKILL.md:187 SKILL.md:215-217 SKILL.md:217-218 SKILL.md:218-219 SKILL.md:219-221 SKILL.md:221-223 SKILL.md:223-224 SKILL.md:224-225 SKILL.md:225-226 SKILL.md:226-228 SKILL.md:228-230 SKILL.md:230-231 SKILL.md:231-232 SKILL.md:232-233 SKILL.md:233-234 SKILL.md:234-235 SKILL.md:235-243 SKILL.md:243-259 SKILL.md:259-265 SKILL.md:265-281 SKILL.md:281-287 SKILL.md:287-313 SKILL.md:313-319 SKILL.md:319-338 SKILL.md:338-344 SKILL.md:344-373 SKILL.md:373-374 SKILL.md:374-375 SKILL.md:375-379 SKILL.md:379-381 SKILL.md:381-384 SKILL.md:384-385 SKILL.md:385-392 SKILL.md:392 SKILL.md:393-395 SKILL.md:395-403 SKILL.md:403-404 SKILL.md:404-405 SKILL.md:405 SKILL.md:406-416 SKILL.md:416 SKILL.md:417-418 SKILL.md:418-420 SKILL.md:420-429 SKILL.md:429-430 SKILL.md:430-436 SKILL.md:436-437 SKILL.md:437-439 SKILL.md:439-444 SKILL.md:444-453 SKILL.md:453-460 SKILL.md:460-466 SKILL.md:466-476 SKILL.md:476-480 SKILL.md:480-492 SKILL.md:80
📁 Filesystem access (9)
Audited by: codex

Jul 5, 2026, 01:15 AM

Most static findings are expected Gitleaks documentation, configuration examples, or CI templates rather than live secret access. I confirmed one unsafe troubleshooting command and added a high-confidence semantic finding for unredacted Gitleaks reports that can expose detected secrets in CI logs or artifacts. No prompt injection attempt was found in the reviewed files.

12
Files scanned
3,311
Lines analyzed
6
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (1)

High
Unredacted Secret Reports in CI Templates
The GitHub and GitLab templates generate Gitleaks reports without redaction and upload or retain them as artifacts. The GitLab incremental job also prints new-findings.json to logs, which can expose detected secret values.
The report generation commands visibly omit redaction while artifacts and log output retain or print the generated reports. Gitleaks JSON findings can include secret material, so this is a credible exposure path.
Capability review items (1)

These are real local capabilities that may be expected for this skill, so they require review but are not counted as confirmed malicious behavior.

Medium
xargs command (can execute arbitrary commands)
gitleaks detect --report-format json | jq -r '.[0] | .File, .StartLine' | xargs -I {} sh -c 'sed -n
The troubleshooting example pipes Gitleaks output into xargs and sh -c, embedding report-derived file and line values in a shell command. A crafted repository path could turn copied guidance into command injection.

Risk Factors

🔑 Env variables (35)
🌐 Network access (26)
⚙️ External commands (92)
assets/github-action.yml:102-112 assets/github-action.yml:137 assets/gitlab-ci.yml:54 assets/gitlab-ci.yml:104 assets/gitlab-ci.yml:207 assets/gitlab-ci.yml:208 references/compliance_mapping.md:334 references/false_positives.md:503 references/false_positives.md:506 references/false_positives.md:509 references/false_positives.md:425 references/false_positives.md:562 references/remediation_guide.md:310 references/remediation_guide.md:439 SKILL.md:36-49 SKILL.md:49-57 SKILL.md:57-69 SKILL.md:69-77 SKILL.md:77-85 SKILL.md:85-89 SKILL.md:89-91 SKILL.md:91-99 SKILL.md:99-112 SKILL.md:112-116 SKILL.md:116-127 SKILL.md:127-135 SKILL.md:135-141 SKILL.md:141-147 SKILL.md:147-149 SKILL.md:149-172 SKILL.md:172-174 SKILL.md:174-175 SKILL.md:175-176 SKILL.md:176-177 SKILL.md:177-185 SKILL.md:185-187 SKILL.md:187 SKILL.md:215-217 SKILL.md:217-218 SKILL.md:218-219 SKILL.md:219-221 SKILL.md:221-223 SKILL.md:223-224 SKILL.md:224-225 SKILL.md:225-226 SKILL.md:226-228 SKILL.md:228-230 SKILL.md:230-231 SKILL.md:231-232 SKILL.md:232-233 SKILL.md:233-234 SKILL.md:234-235 SKILL.md:235-243 SKILL.md:243-259 SKILL.md:259-265 SKILL.md:265-281 SKILL.md:281-287 SKILL.md:287-313 SKILL.md:313-319 SKILL.md:319-338 SKILL.md:338-344 SKILL.md:344-373 SKILL.md:373-374 SKILL.md:374-375 SKILL.md:375-379 SKILL.md:379-381 SKILL.md:381-384 SKILL.md:384-385 SKILL.md:385-392 SKILL.md:392 SKILL.md:393-395 SKILL.md:395-403 SKILL.md:403-404 SKILL.md:404-405 SKILL.md:405 SKILL.md:406-416 SKILL.md:416 SKILL.md:417-418 SKILL.md:418-420 SKILL.md:420-429 SKILL.md:429-430 SKILL.md:430-436 SKILL.md:436-437 SKILL.md:437-439 SKILL.md:439-444 SKILL.md:444-453 SKILL.md:453-460 SKILL.md:460-466 SKILL.md:466-476 SKILL.md:476-480 SKILL.md:480-492 SKILL.md:80
📁 Filesystem access (9)
Audited by: codex

Jun 28, 2026, 06:25 AM

Static analysis reported many high-risk patterns, but review found they are mostly defensive Gitleaks rules, CI templates, and remediation examples rather than malicious code. No prompt injection or data exfiltration intent was found. Publication is acceptable with a warning because the CI examples execute external commands, read scan reports, upload artifacts, and include some fail-open examples.

12
Files scanned
3,311
Lines analyzed
8
Review items
1
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (1)

Low
Credential Pattern Findings Are Documentation Examples
Verdict: FALSE_POSITIVE for embedded secret theft. The API key, private key, token, and password strings are detection rules or placeholder patterns. They describe what Gitleaks should find and do not contain real credentials. Confidence: 0.91. Confidence reasoning: the surrounding headings and fields identify these as rule definitions and examples, not operational secrets.
Capability review items (3)

These are real local capabilities that may be expected for this skill, so they require review but are not counted as confirmed malicious behavior.

Medium
Executable CI Templates Process Repository Contents
Verdict: TRUE_POSITIVE for external command and filesystem access, but legitimate for a Gitleaks skill. The GitHub and GitLab templates run Gitleaks in CI, read generated reports, and upload artifacts. This can expose sensitive findings if artifact access is too broad. Confidence: 0.82. Confidence reasoning: the commands and file reads are explicit, but their purpose is defensive scanning rather than covert exfiltration.
Medium
Fail-Open Secret Scanning Examples
Verdict: TRUE_POSITIVE as a workflow risk. Several examples suppress scanner exit codes with exit-code zero or shell true. Some sections add later checks, but users who copy only the command may create secret gates that pass after findings. Confidence: 0.76. Confidence reasoning: the fail-open commands are visible, while final impact depends on how users copy and deploy the templates.
Low
Hardcoded URL Findings Are Expected References
Verdict: FALSE_POSITIVE for malicious network behavior. The URLs point to official Gitleaks, OWASP, CWE, pre-commit, GitHub, or CI API resources used by documentation and templates. Confidence: 0.88. Confidence reasoning: the URLs are visible references or platform endpoints, with no hidden outbound data channel found.
Static false positives ignored (1)

These static matches were dismissed by semantic review or matched schema-only tokens, so they are shown for transparency but do not drive the quality score.

Low
Malware Keyword Findings Are Contextual False Positives
Verdict: FALSE_POSITIVE. Static malware and C2 keyword hits appear in compliance and remediation reference material about security controls, not in instructions to deploy malware. No prompt injection language was found. Confidence: 0.84. Confidence reasoning: the reviewed files consistently discuss defensive secret detection and incident response, though broad markdown keyword matches require human context.

Detected Patterns

CI Uses External Scanner CommandsCI Reads and Publishes Secret Scan Reports
Audited by: codex

Jan 16, 2026, 04:18 PM

This is a legitimate defensive security tool for detecting hardcoded secrets. All 572 static findings are FALSE POSITIVES triggered by documentation examples, configuration placeholders, and CI/CD templates. No malicious patterns exist. The skill provides guidance for integrating Gitleaks, an established open-source secret scanning tool.

13
Files scanned
3,610
Lines analyzed
4
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Risk Factors

⚙️ External commands (1)
🌐 Network access (1)
📁 Filesystem access (1)
🔑 Env variables (1)
Audited by: claude

Jan 16, 2026, 04:18 PM

This is a legitimate defensive security tool for detecting hardcoded secrets. All 572 static findings are FALSE POSITIVES triggered by documentation examples, configuration placeholders, and CI/CD templates. No malicious patterns exist. The skill provides guidance for integrating Gitleaks, an established open-source secret scanning tool.

13
Files scanned
3,610
Lines analyzed
4
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Risk Factors

⚙️ External commands (1)
🌐 Network access (1)
📁 Filesystem access (1)
🔑 Env variables (1)
Audited by: claude

Jan 10, 2026, 11:03 AM

This is a defensive security tool that detects hardcoded secrets. Documentation-only skill with configuration templates and CI/CD workflows. No executable scripts included in the bundle. Legitimate security scanning functionality with no malicious patterns.

12
Files scanned
3,311
Lines analyzed
4
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Risk Factors

⚡ Contains scripts (1)
⚙️ External commands (1)
🌐 Network access (1)
📁 Filesystem access (1)
Audited by: claude

Jan 10, 2026, 11:03 AM

This is a defensive security tool that detects hardcoded secrets. Documentation-only skill with configuration templates and CI/CD workflows. No executable scripts included in the bundle. Legitimate security scanning functionality with no malicious patterns.

12
Files scanned
3,311
Lines analyzed
4
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Risk Factors

⚡ Contains scripts (1)
⚙️ External commands (1)
🌐 Network access (1)
📁 Filesystem access (1)
Audited by: claude

Jan 10, 2026, 11:03 AM

This is a defensive security tool that detects hardcoded secrets. Documentation-only skill with configuration templates and CI/CD workflows. No executable scripts included in the bundle. Legitimate security scanning functionality with no malicious patterns.

12
Files scanned
3,311
Lines analyzed
4
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Risk Factors

⚡ Contains scripts (1)
⚙️ External commands (1)
🌐 Network access (1)
📁 Filesystem access (1)
Audited by: claude