Compare Versions - Security Drift Detection

Name: compare-versions
Rating: 92
Author: iriusrisk

Quick Start

When a user asks to compare versions or check for drift:

python

# User: "Compare the baseline version to current"
compare_versions(baseline_version="Baseline Version")

# User: "Check for drift since v1.0-approved"  
compare_versions(baseline_version="v1.0-approved")

# User: "Compare v1.0 to v2.0"
compare_versions(baseline_version="v1.0-approved", target_version="v2.0-approved")

That's it. The tool auto-discovers the project context. You just need the version name or UUID.

Purpose

This skill compares different states of a threat model to identify architectural and security changes. You will receive structured comparison results (not raw files) that show what changed between versions, which you then interpret and communicate to humans.

This is a DATA skill - it provides structured diff results for you to analyze. For comprehensive CI/CD workflows that include control verification and orchestration, see ci-cd-verification skill instead.

When to Use This Skill

Use compare-versions when:

•Reviewing pull requests for security impacts
•Detecting drift from approved security baselines
•Comparing two threat model versions to understand what changed
•Auditing historical changes between baselines

DO NOT use this skill for:

•Creating new threat models (use create-threat-model workflow instead)
•Analyzing code without comparing versions
•Updating threat/countermeasure status (use track_threat_update instead)

How It Works

Division of Responsibilities

The Python Tool Does (Deterministic Work):

•Downloads diagram XML, threats JSON, countermeasures JSON from specified versions
•Parses mxGraph XML to extract components, dataflows, trust zones
•Compares baseline vs target to find added/removed/modified elements
•Returns structured JSON diff with all changes and metadata

You Do (Interpretation & Communication):

•Interpret the structured diff results
•Assess security implications of each change
•Generate human-readable reports with context
•Assign risk levels and make recommendations
•Communicate findings clearly to security teams

Tool Parameters

code

compare_versions(
    baseline_version: str,       # Required - version UUID or name for baseline
    target_version: str = None,  # Optional - if None, compares against current state  
    project_path: str = None     # Optional - auto-discovered if not provided
)

Note: The tool automatically discovers the project context (finds .iriusrisk/ directory and reads project.json). You typically don't need to specify project_path.

Version Resolution: You can provide either:

•Version name (e.g., "Baseline Version", "v1.0-approved")
•Version UUID (e.g., "a1b2c3d4-...")

The tool will resolve version names to UUIDs automatically.

Comparison Modes

Mode 3: Version vs Current (Most Common)

When: Compare approved baseline against current project state
Parameters: baseline_version specified, no target_version
Use Case: "How has the project drifted since last approval?"

python

# Simple - version name (auto-discovers project)
compare_versions(baseline_version="Baseline Version")

# Or with UUID
compare_versions(baseline_version="a1b2c3d4-e5f6-...")

Mode 4: Version vs Version (Historical Audit)

When: Compare two historical baselines
Parameters: Both baseline_version and target_version specified
Use Case: "What changed between approved baselines?"

python

# Compare two version names
compare_versions(
    baseline_version="Baseline Version",
    target_version="v2.0-approved"
)

# Or with UUIDs
compare_versions(
    baseline_version="a1b2c3d4-...",
    target_version="d4e5f6a7-..."
)

Understanding the Structured Diff

The tool returns JSON with this structure.

IMPORTANT: The tool also preserves the raw data files in .iriusrisk/verification/ for you to read if you need more details:

•baseline-diagram.xml - Baseline architecture
•baseline-threats.json - Baseline threats with full details
•baseline-countermeasures.json - Baseline countermeasures with full details
•verification-diagram.xml - Target architecture
•verification-threats.json - Target threats with full details
•verification-countermeasures.json - Target countermeasures with full details

The metadata.verification_files section in the response tells you the exact paths to these files. Read these files directly if you need to see full threat descriptions, affected components, or other details not included in the summary diff.

json

{
  "metadata": {
    "comparison_mode": "Mode 3: Version vs Current",
    "baseline_version": "baseline-v1.0",
    "target_version": "current",
    "project_id": "uuid..."
  },
  
  "architecture": {
    "components": {
      "added": [{id, name, style, ...}, ...],
      "removed": [{...}, ...],
      "modified": [{id, name, changes: {...}}, ...]
    },
    "dataflows": {
      "added": [{id, source, target, ...}, ...],
      "removed": [{...}, ...],
      "modified": [{...}, ...]
    },
    "trust_zones": {
      "added": [{...}, ...],
      "removed": [{...}, ...],
      "modified": [{...}, ...]
    }
  },
  
  "security": {
    "threats": {
      "added": [{id, referenceId, name, riskRating, ...}, ...],
      "removed": [{...}, ...],
      "modified": [{id, name, riskRating, changes: {...}}, ...],
      "severity_increases": [{threat_id, old_severity, new_severity}, ...],
      "threats_now_affecting_new_components": [{threat_id, threat_name, threat_severity, new_components, reason}, ...],
      "total_baseline": 42,
      "total_target": 47
    },
    "countermeasures": {
      "added": [{id, referenceId, name, state, ...}, ...],
      "removed": [{...}, ...],
      "modified": [{...}, ...],
      "critical_removals": [{countermeasure_id, severity, reason}, ...],
      "countermeasures_now_for_new_components": [{countermeasure_id, countermeasure_name, state, new_components, reason}, ...],
      "total_baseline": 35,
      "total_target": 38
    }
  },
  
  "summary": {
    "architecture_changes": {
      "components_added": 2,
      "components_removed": 0,
      "components_modified": 1,
      ...
    },
    "security_changes": {
      "threats_added": 5,
      "severity_increases": 2,
      "critical_removals": 1,
      ...
    },
    "risk_indicators": {
      "has_critical_removals": true,
      "has_severity_increases": true,
      "has_new_components": true
    }
  }
}

Interpreting Changes

Architecture Changes

Components Added:

•What it means: New services, systems, or infrastructure added to the architecture
•Security implications: New attack surface, potential for misconfiguration
•Questions to ask: What data does it handle? What trust zone is it in? Does it cross boundaries?

Dataflows Added:

•What it means: New connections between components, data moving between systems
•Security implications: Trust boundary crossings, data exposure, protocol security
•Questions to ask: What data flows through it? Is it encrypted? Does it cross trust boundaries?

Trust Zones Modified:

•What it means: Components moved between trust zones (e.g., internal → external)
•Security implications: Change in security posture, new boundary exposures
•Critical: This is often a sign of architectural changes requiring review

Security Changes

Threats Added:

•What it means: Completely new threats with new IDs that didn't exist in baseline
•Focus on: HIGH and CRITICAL severity threats, threats without mitigations
•Explain: Why these threats exist (what architectural change introduced them)

Threats Now Affecting New Components:

•What it means: Existing threats (same ID) that now also apply to newly added components
•This is common: When you add a component, existing threats may now apply to it
•Example: "SQL Injection" threat existed for API Server, now also applies to new Admin API component
•Important: These are NOT new threats, but existing threats with expanded scope
•Focus on: HIGH/CRITICAL threats that now affect sensitive new components

Severity Increases:

•What it means: Existing threats now have higher severity (LOW → MEDIUM → HIGH → CRITICAL)
•Critical indicator: Something made the threat more serious (often architectural changes)
•Explain: What changed to increase the severity

Countermeasures Removed:

•What it means: Security controls that existed in baseline are gone
•Critical indicator: Potential security regression
•Investigate: Why was it removed? Is there an alternative? Was this intentional?

Critical Removals:

•What it means: IMPLEMENTED countermeasures were removed from the threat model
•Highest priority: These are active security controls that are now missing
•Action required: Explain why removed or flag for immediate attention

Report Generation Guidelines

Structure Your Report

•
Executive Summary
- •Overall risk level (LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / CRITICAL)
- •Key findings (count of changes)
- •Critical issues requiring immediate attention
•
Architectural Changes Section
- •List components added/removed/modified
- •Explain what each component does
- •Identify trust boundary crossings
- •Note any suspicious or high-risk changes
•
Security Impact Section
- •List threats added (prioritize by severity)
- •Explain severity increases
- •Highlight countermeasure removals
- •Show relationship between architecture and security changes
•
Critical Issues
- •Flag critical removals
- •Flag high-severity threats without mitigations
- •Flag unexpected trust boundary crossings
•
Recommendations
- •What requires immediate action
- •What needs security team review
- •What documentation is needed
- •Suggested mitigations for new threats

Risk Assessment Guidance

Assign Overall Risk Level:

CRITICAL: Any of these present:

•Critical removals (implemented countermeasures removed)
•Multiple HIGH/CRITICAL threats added without mitigations
•Unexpected trust boundary crossings with sensitive data

HIGH: Any of these present:

•Multiple severity increases
•Countermeasures removed (even if not critical)
•New external services handling sensitive data
•New HIGH severity threats without mitigations

MEDIUM:

•Multiple new components or dataflows
•Several new threats (MEDIUM severity)
•Architectural changes affecting security posture

LOW:

•Minor changes (1-2 components)
•No new HIGH/CRITICAL threats
•All new threats have mitigations planned

Communication Style

•Be clear and specific: "Redis Cache component added to External Services zone"
•Explain implications: "This crosses a trust boundary, exposing session data externally"
•Be actionable: "Enable TLS for Redis connections before merging"
•Show relationships: "The Redis addition introduced 3 new threats related to cache security"
•Prioritize: Start with critical items, then high, then medium/low

Example Report Snippet

markdown

## 🔒 Security Drift Analysis

### Summary
**Overall Risk Level:** ⚠️ **MEDIUM-HIGH**

**Changes Detected:**
- Architecture: 2 components added, 3 dataflows added
- Security: 5 threats added, 1 countermeasure removed, 2 severity increases

---

### Critical Issues

❌ **CRITICAL: Authentication Token Expiration Removed**
- **Component:** User Service  
- **Issue:** The "Authentication token expiration" countermeasure was IMPLEMENTED in baseline but is now removed  
- **Impact:** Tokens never expire, increasing unauthorized access risk  
- **Action Required:** Explain why this was removed or restore immediately

---

### New Components

**Redis Cache** (External Service)
- **Trust Zone:** External Services
- **Purpose:** Session storage and caching
- **Security Concern:** Crosses trust boundary (Internal → External)
- **New Threats Introduced:**
  - HIGH: Unencrypted data in transit to Redis
  - MEDIUM: Cache poisoning attacks
  - MEDIUM: Session token theft
- **Recommendation:** Enable TLS before merging, encrypt session data

---

### Recommendations

#### Must Address Before Merge
1. Restore authentication token expiration or explain removal
2. Enable TLS for Redis connections
3. Encrypt sensitive data before caching

#### Address Before Production
4. Implement cache key validation
5. Add Redis to disaster recovery plan

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

❌ DON'T overwhelm with raw data: Don't list every field change - focus on security-relevant changes
✅ DO explain implications: Always connect changes to security impact

❌ DON'T assume malice: Changes might be legitimate but need review
✅ DO ask questions: "Why was this removed?" vs "This removal is wrong"

❌ DON'T make approval decisions: You provide analysis, humans decide
✅ DO make clear recommendations: "Recommend: Request changes" with reasoning

❌ DON'T ignore context: A "removed" countermeasure might have been replaced
✅ DO look for patterns: Multiple related changes might tell a story

Remember

•You interpret, humans decide - Your job is clear analysis, not approval/rejection
•Security context matters - A "removed" countermeasure might be replaced by something better
•Changes aren't inherently bad - They need review and understanding
•Be thorough but concise - Security teams need actionable information, not novels
•Focus on risk - Prioritize critical issues over minor changes

Use this skill to provide security teams with clear, actionable intelligence about threat model changes, enabling them to make informed decisions about accepting or rejecting changes.