Mohak Rathod commited on
Commit
7ca06ad
Β·
1 Parent(s): 511997e

chore: Updated README.md

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +289 -1
README.md CHANGED
@@ -1,2 +1,290 @@
1
  # VulnGraph
2
- Open-Source LLM-Powered Application Security Posture Management Platform
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
  # VulnGraph
2
+
3
+ **AI-powered Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) platform.** Scans codebases for vulnerabilities and secrets, models attack paths as a graph, and generates LLM-powered explanations and code patches.
4
+
5
+ > ⚠️ **For full functionality, run locally.** The deployed demo runs in static mode β€” scans, LLM explanations, and agent patches require a local environment with Neo4j and Ollama.
6
+
7
+ **Live Demo**
8
+ - Dashboard: https://vulngraph-dashboard.onrender.com
9
+ - API: https://vulngraph-api.onrender.com
10
+ - API Docs: https://vulngraph-api.onrender.com/docs
11
+
12
+ ---
13
+
14
+ ## What It Does
15
+
16
+ - **Scans** codebases using Gitleaks (secrets), Trivy (CVEs), and Bandit (SAST)
17
+ - **Models** findings as a Neo4j attack graph β€” files connected to vulnerabilities and secrets
18
+ - **Explains** each finding using a local LLM (llama3.2:3b via Ollama) augmented with RAG retrieval from a CWE/OWASP/Bandit knowledge base
19
+ - **Patches** vulnerabilities using a deterministic 5-step agentic pipeline
20
+ - **Exposes** tools over MCP so Claude Desktop and other AI clients can query your attack graph
21
+ - **Evaluates** LLM explanation quality using a custom RAGAS harness (relevancy, faithfulness, CWE accuracy)
22
+ - **Generates** SBOMs in CycloneDX and SPDX formats
23
+
24
+ ---
25
+
26
+ ## Architecture
27
+
28
+ ```
29
+ Scanners Graph DB AI Layer
30
+ ───────────────── ────────── ──────────────────────────
31
+ Gitleaks (secrets) ──► Neo4j ──► LLM explanations (Ollama)
32
+ Trivy (CVEs) ──► Attack graph ──► RAG pipeline (ChromaDB)
33
+ Bandit (SAST) ──► File nodes ──► Agent + patch generation
34
+ MCP server
35
+ FastAPI ──► Streamlit Dashboard
36
+ ```
37
+
38
+ ---
39
+
40
+ ## Real Findings
41
+
42
+ Tested against four codebases:
43
+
44
+ | Target | Gitleaks | Trivy | Bandit | Notable |
45
+ |--------|----------|-------|--------|---------|
46
+ | VulnGraph itself | HF token, AWS key | 2 CVEs | 11 findings | Own codebase |
47
+ | dvpwa (vulnerable Python app) | 0 | 48 CVEs | 2 findings | SQL injection (B608), MD5 (B324), PyYAML CRITICAL (CVE-2017-18342) |
48
+ | secretsandstuff | AWS key, GitHub token | 2 findings | 0 | Secret detection demo |
49
+ | Juice Shop | 11 secrets | 9 findings | 0 | JWT tokens, private keys, Docker misconfigs |
50
+
51
+ ---
52
+
53
+ ## Local Setup
54
+
55
+ ### Prerequisites
56
+
57
+ - Python 3.12
58
+ - Docker
59
+ - [Ollama](https://ollama.ai)
60
+ - Gitleaks and Trivy executables in `tools/`
61
+
62
+ ### 1. Clone and install
63
+
64
+ ```bash
65
+ git clone https://github.com/your-username/VulnGraph
66
+ cd VulnGraph
67
+ python -m venv .venv
68
+ .venv\Scripts\activate # Windows
69
+ pip install -r requirements.txt
70
+ ```
71
+
72
+ ### 2. Start Neo4j
73
+
74
+ ```bash
75
+ docker run -d \
76
+ --name vulngraph-neo4j \
77
+ -p 7474:7474 -p 7687:7687 \
78
+ -e NEO4J_AUTH=neo4j/vulngraph123 \
79
+ neo4j:5.25-community
80
+ ```
81
+
82
+ ### 3. Start Ollama and pull model
83
+
84
+ ```bash
85
+ ollama serve
86
+ ollama pull llama3.2:3b
87
+ ```
88
+
89
+ ### 4. Configure environment
90
+
91
+ ```bash
92
+ cp .env.example .env
93
+ # Edit .env with your values
94
+ ```
95
+
96
+ `.env`:
97
+ ```
98
+ NEO4J_URI=bolt://localhost:7687
99
+ NEO4J_USER=PLACEHOLDER
100
+ NEO4J_PASSWORD=PLACEHOLDER
101
+ OLLAMA_URL=http://localhost:11434
102
+ OLLAMA_MODEL=llama3.2:3b
103
+ ```
104
+
105
+ ### 5. Seed knowledge base
106
+
107
+ ```bash
108
+ cd app
109
+ python rag.py
110
+ ```
111
+
112
+ ### 6. Run
113
+
114
+ ```bash
115
+ # Dashboard
116
+ streamlit run app/main.py
117
+
118
+ # API (separate terminal)
119
+ uvicorn app.api:app --reload --port 8000
120
+ ```
121
+
122
+ ---
123
+
124
+ ## Scanning
125
+
126
+ ### Scan your own codebase
127
+
128
+ Click **Run Full Scan** in the dashboard, or:
129
+
130
+ ```bash
131
+ cd app
132
+ python scanner.py
133
+ ```
134
+
135
+ ### Scan an external repo (local)
136
+
137
+ ```python
138
+ from scanner import scan_all
139
+ results = scan_all(target_dir="/path/to/repo")
140
+ ```
141
+
142
+ ### Scan via API (Git URL)
143
+
144
+ ```bash
145
+ curl -X POST https://vulngraph-api.onrender.com/scan/repo \
146
+ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
147
+ -d '{"repo_url": "https://github.com/anxolerd/dvpwa"}'
148
+ ```
149
+
150
+ > Note: The `/scan/repo` endpoint clones and scans the repo but does not store results in Neo4j on the deployed version. For full pipeline including LLM explanations and graph visualization, run locally.
151
+
152
+ ### Generate LLM explanations
153
+
154
+ ```bash
155
+ python app/llm.py
156
+ ```
157
+
158
+ ### Generate patch for a finding
159
+
160
+ ```bash
161
+ python app/agent.py --finding B404
162
+ ```
163
+
164
+ ---
165
+
166
+ ## MCP Server (Claude Desktop)
167
+
168
+ Exposes VulnGraph tools over the Model Context Protocol so Claude Desktop can query your attack graph, retrieve security context, and generate patches.
169
+
170
+ Add to `%APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json`:
171
+
172
+ ```json
173
+ {
174
+ "mcpServers": {
175
+ "vulngraph": {
176
+ "command": "C:\\path\\to\\VulnGraph\\.venv\\Scripts\\python.exe",
177
+ "args": ["C:\\path\\to\\VulnGraph\\app\\mcp_server.py"]
178
+ }
179
+ }
180
+ }
181
+ ```
182
+
183
+ Available tools: `query_attack_graph`, `search_knowledge_base`, `get_file_context`, `generate_patch`, `get_finding_explanation`
184
+
185
+ ---
186
+
187
+ ## API Endpoints
188
+
189
+ | Method | Path | Description |
190
+ |--------|------|-------------|
191
+ | GET | `/health` | Service health check |
192
+ | GET | `/stats` | Scan metrics |
193
+ | GET | `/findings` | All findings (filterable by severity, source) |
194
+ | GET | `/findings/{id}` | Single finding with LLM explanation |
195
+ | GET | `/graph` | Attack path graph as JSON |
196
+ | GET | `/sbom` | SBOM in CycloneDX or SPDX format |
197
+ | POST | `/scan` | Trigger full scan |
198
+ | POST | `/scan/repo` | Scan a public GitHub repo by URL |
199
+ | POST | `/explain` | Generate LLM explanations |
200
+ | POST | `/agent/fix` | Run agent to generate code patch |
201
+
202
+ ---
203
+
204
+ ## LLM Evaluation
205
+
206
+ Measures explanation quality against a ground truth dataset using three metrics:
207
+
208
+ - **Relevancy (50%)** β€” does the explanation address the actual vulnerability?
209
+ - **Faithfulness (30%)** β€” does it align with RAG-retrieved context?
210
+ - **CWE Accuracy (20%)** β€” was the correct CWE identified?
211
+
212
+ ```bash
213
+ python app/eval.py
214
+ ```
215
+
216
+ Model comparison results:
217
+
218
+ | Model | Pass Rate | Avg Overall |
219
+ |-------|-----------|-------------|
220
+ | llama3.2:3b | 66.7% | 0.600 |
221
+ | phi3 | 33.3% | 0.547 |
222
+ | gemma2:2b | 33.3% | 0.563 |
223
+ | qwen2.5:1.5b | 16.7% | 0.538 |
224
+
225
+ ---
226
+
227
+ ## Tech Stack
228
+
229
+ | Layer | Technology |
230
+ |-------|-----------|
231
+ | Scanners | Gitleaks, Trivy, Bandit |
232
+ | Graph DB | Neo4j 5.25 |
233
+ | LLM | llama3.2:3b via Ollama |
234
+ | RAG | ChromaDB + sentence-transformers + BM25 hybrid |
235
+ | Backend | FastAPI |
236
+ | Frontend | Streamlit |
237
+ | Agent | Deterministic 5-step pipeline |
238
+ | MCP | Model Context Protocol (Anthropic) |
239
+ | CI/CD | GitHub Actions |
240
+ | Deployment | Render |
241
+
242
+ ---
243
+
244
+ ## Project Structure
245
+
246
+ ```
247
+ VulnGraph/
248
+ β”œβ”€β”€ app/
249
+ β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ main.py # Streamlit dashboard
250
+ β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ api.py # FastAPI backend
251
+ β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ scanner.py # Gitleaks + Trivy + Bandit pipeline
252
+ β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ llm.py # LLM explanation generation
253
+ β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ rag.py # ChromaDB RAG + BM25 hybrid retrieval
254
+ β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ schemas.py # Pydantic validation models
255
+ β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ eval.py # LLM evaluation harness
256
+ β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ agent.py # Deterministic agentic pipeline
257
+ β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ tools.py # Agent tool implementations
258
+ β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ mcp_server.py # MCP server
259
+ β”‚ └── pages/
260
+ β”‚ └── 2_πŸ“Š_Eval_Dashboard.py
261
+ β”œβ”€β”€ .github/workflows/
262
+ β”‚ β”œβ”€β”€ scan.yml # Security scan CI
263
+ β”‚ └── eval.yml # LLM eval CI
264
+ β”œβ”€β”€ data/
265
+ β”‚ └── chroma/ # ChromaDB vector store
266
+ β”œβ”€β”€ tools/ # Gitleaks and Trivy executables
267
+ └── gitleaks.toml # Custom secret detection rules
268
+ ```
269
+ ## RAG Pipeline
270
+
271
+ VulnGraph uses a hybrid retrieval system combining vector search and BM25 keyword search for accurate security context retrieval.
272
+
273
+ ### How it works
274
+
275
+ 1. **Query expansion** β€” finding IDs are expanded with domain-specific terms (e.g. `B404` β†’ `B404 subprocess import command injection OS command CWE-78`)
276
+ 2. **Metadata filtering** β€” Bandit findings only search Bandit + OWASP docs, CVE findings only search CWE + OWASP docs, preventing cross-source contamination
277
+ 3. **Vector search** β€” ChromaDB with `all-MiniLM-L6-v2` embeddings retrieves semantically similar documents
278
+ 4. **BM25 search** β€” keyword search finds exact rule ID matches that vector search misses
279
+ 5. **Fusion scoring** β€” results combined with weighted score: Vector (60%) + BM25 (40%)
280
+
281
+ ### Impact
282
+
283
+ Before hybrid RAG, B404 retrieval returned unrelated crypto documents (B304 at 34.6%). After:
284
+
285
+ | Finding | Before | After |
286
+ |---------|--------|-------|
287
+ | B404 | B304 weak cipher (34.6%) | B404 subprocess (74.0%) |
288
+ | B105 | Unknown | B105 hardcoded password (80.0%) |
289
+
290
+ Knowledge base: 120 documents β€” 26 CWE definitions, 10 OWASP Top 10 (2025), 84 Bandit rules