Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →A cryptographic audit systematically reviews an application's use of cryptographic primitives, protocols, and key management to identify vulnerabilities such as weak algorithms, insecure modes, hardco
.claude/skills/performing-cryptographic-audit-of-application/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-06 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | — | — |
| case-15 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-19 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-14 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
A cryptographic audit systematically reviews an application's use of cryptographic primitives, protocols, and key management to identify vulnerabilities such as weak algorithms, insecure modes, hardcoded keys, insufficient entropy, and protocol misconfigurations. This skill covers building an automated crypto audit tool that scans Python and configuration files for common cryptographic weaknesses.
| Category | Examples | Risk Level | |----------|----------|------------| | Weak Hashing | MD5, SHA-1 for integrity/signatures | High | | Insecure Encryption | DES, 3DES, RC4, Blowfish | High | | Bad Cipher Mode | ECB mode for any block cipher | High | | Insufficient Key Size | RSA < 2048, AES-128 for long-term | Medium | | Hardcoded Secrets | Keys/passwords in source code | Critical | | Weak KDF | Low iteration PBKDF2, plain MD5 | High | | Poor Entropy | time-based seeds, predictable IVs | High | | Deprecated Protocols | SSLv3, TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1 | High |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +5 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.