# Handoff Report — Forensic Audit of CAPA Tools

This handoff report summarizes the forensic integrity check and adversarial review for the CAPA integration files (`reversecore_mcp/tools/analysis/capa_tools.py` and `tests/unit/tools/analysis/test_capa_tools.py`).

## 1. Observation

### Target Files and Code Sections
- **Implementation File**: `/Users/sjkim1127/Reversecore_MCP/reversecore_mcp/tools/analysis/capa_tools.py`
- **Test File**: `/Users/sjkim1127/Reversecore_MCP/tests/unit/tools/analysis/test_capa_tools.py`

- **Observed exact code section (capa_tools.py lines 145-147)**:
  ```python
  high_risk_count = sum(
      result["summary"]["namespaces"].get(ns, 0) for ns in high_risk_namespaces
  )
  ```
- **Observed exact code section (capa_tools.py lines 27-28)**:
  ```python
  async def run_capa(file_path: str, output_format: str = "summary"):
      """
  ```
- **Observed exact code section (test_capa_tools.py lines 93-111)**:
  ```python
          # Mock three rule objects with varying properties:
          # Rule 1: High-risk namespace, MITRE ATT&CK technique and MBC technique
          mock_rule1 = MagicMock()
          mock_rule1.meta = {
              "namespace": "defense-evasion",
              "description": "Obfuscated code",
              "scope": "basic block",
              "att&ck": ["T1027"],
              "mbc": ["B0002"],
          }

          # Rule 2: High-risk namespace, duplicate MITRE ATT&CK technique to verify duplication prevention
          mock_rule2 = MagicMock()
          mock_rule2.meta = {
              "namespace": "persistence",
              ...
  ```

### Command Executed and Results
Command:
```bash
pytest tests/unit/tools/analysis/test_capa_tools.py --cov=reversecore_mcp/tools/analysis/capa_tools --cov-report=term-missing
```
Output:
```
============================== 12 passed in 2.60s ==============================
reversecore_mcp/tools/analysis/capa_tools.py               66      0   100%
```

---

## 2. Logic Chain

1. **Integrity Mode Context**: The integrity mode specified in `/Users/sjkim1127/Reversecore_MCP/ORIGINAL_REQUEST.md` is `development` (lenient). Under `development` mode, only hardcoded expected outputs, dummy/facade implementations, and fabricated logs are prohibited.
2. **Analysis of Implementation Integrity**:
   - The tool `reversecore_mcp/tools/analysis/capa_tools.py` contains genuine wrapper code calling real `capa` library APIs (`capa.main.get_default_root()`, `capa.rules.get_rules()`, `capa.loader.get_extractor()`, and `capa.main.find_capabilities()`).
   - The tool does not contain any hardcoded output results (e.g. bypass strings mapped to mock file paths) designed to cheat and bypass tests.
   - The tool's functionality behaves dynamically based on standard inputs and exception flows.
   - Thus, no integrity violations were detected.
3. **Analysis of Verification Integrity (Mocks)**:
   - The unit tests use `unittest.mock` to simulate `capa` submodules. This aligns with requirement **R2 (Isolated Unit Testing)** in the user request.
   - However, the mock setup in `test_run_capa_success` uses flat namespace mocks (`"defense-evasion"`, `"persistence"`).
   - In `capa_tools.py`, the `high_risk_count` calculation uses an exact dictionary lookup: `result["summary"]["namespaces"].get(ns, 0)`.
   - Real-world CAPA rules have hierarchical namespaces (e.g., `"defense-evasion/obfuscation"`, `"persistence/registry"`).
   - If a rule has namespace `"defense-evasion/obfuscation"`, the exact key lookup on `"defense-evasion"` returns `0`. Consequently, `high_risk_count` is counted as `0` in production runs.
   - The tests passed with 100% coverage only because the mock namespaces were flat, masking this logic bug.
4. **Discrepancy in Parameter Usage**:
   - The `output_format` parameter in `run_capa`'s signature is never used in the function body, meaning it is an unimplemented interface element (facade parameter).

---

## 3. Caveats

- **No Native CAPA Testing**: We did not execute tests using native `flare-capa` dependencies or rules because the environment does not have them pre-installed, and requirement R2 mandates mocking to ensure tests are isolated and reliable.
- **Assumed Namespace Layout**: We assume standard CAPA rules use hierarchical/nested namespaces (like `defense-evasion/obfuscation`), which is the documented convention of Mandiant CAPA.

---

## 4. Conclusion

- **Verdict**: **CLEAN** (with findings / functional bugs reported)
- **Findings**:
  1. **Logic Bug in High-Risk Count**: Exact lookup `result["summary"]["namespaces"].get(ns, 0)` fails for hierarchical namespaces.
  2. **Discrepancy in High-Risk List**: `run_capa_quick` includes `"execution"` as a high-risk namespace, but `run_capa` does not.
  3. **Unused Parameter**: `output_format` in `run_capa` is ignored.
  4. **Incomplete Mocking**: The test suite masks the exact-lookup bug by using flat namespace strings in mocks.
- **Actionable Steps**: Correct the high-risk count calculation in `capa_tools.py` using substring checks, align the lists of high-risk namespaces, use the `output_format` parameter or document its planned implementation, and update the test mocks to use hierarchical namespace names.

---

## 5. Verification Method

To verify these observations:
1. Open `/Users/sjkim1127/Reversecore_MCP/tests/unit/tools/analysis/test_capa_tools.py` and modify mock rule namespaces:
   - Change `"defense-evasion"` to `"defense-evasion/obfuscation"`
   - Change `"persistence"` to `"persistence/registry"`
2. Run unit tests:
   ```bash
   pytest tests/unit/tools/analysis/test_capa_tools.py -v
   ```
3. Observe the test failure: `assert result.metadata["high_risk_count"] == 2` will fail because `high_risk_count` evaluates to `0`.

---

# Forensic Audit Report

**Work Product**: reversecore_mcp/tools/analysis/capa_tools.py & tests/unit/tools/analysis/test_capa_tools.py
**Profile**: General Project
**Verdict**: CLEAN

### Phase Results
- **Hardcoded output detection**: PASS — No bypass strings or pre-coded test outputs found in the tool implementation.
- **Facade detection**: PASS — Genuine integration logic calling real `capa` library APIs is present. (Note: `output_format` is an unused parameter, but this is a minor signature discrepancy rather than a facade implementation).
- **Pre-populated artifact detection**: PASS — No pre-populated execution logs or result outputs were found.
- **Build and run**: PASS — Tests compile and run successfully with 100% code coverage.
- **Output verification**: PASS — Correct data structure and exceptions are tested under mocks.
- **Dependency audit**: PASS — Importing `capa` library is permitted for this CAPA integration module.

---

# Adversarial Review / Challenge Report

**Overall risk assessment**: MEDIUM

## Challenges

### [Medium] Challenge 1: Exact lookup on hierarchical namespaces

- **Assumption challenged**: Assumed `result["summary"]["namespaces"]` keys are exact matches of high-risk namespace category names.
- **Attack scenario**: Real CAPA rule files return namespaces like `"defense-evasion/obfuscation/timestomp"` or `"persistence/registry"`.
- **Blast radius**: The metadata `high_risk_count` will return `0` for these capabilities, and the output message will incorrectly state `0 high-risk` capabilities detected.
- **Mitigation**: Update `run_capa` to compute high-risk count by checking if any key in `result["summary"]["namespaces"]` starts with or contains the high-risk namespace category.

### [Low] Challenge 2: Unused `output_format` parameter

- **Assumption challenged**: Assumed the `output_format` parameter determines the format of the output.
- **Attack scenario**: A user calls the MCP tool with `output_format="detailed"` or `output_format="json"`.
- **Blast radius**: The output structure is identical regardless of the parameter value, violating user expectations based on the signature/docstring.
- **Mitigation**: Implement format filtering / transformation logic in `run_capa` based on the `output_format` value.

## Stress Test Results

- Flat namespace mock in test → `high_risk_count = 2` → `assert result.metadata["high_risk_count"] == 2` → **PASS**
- Hierarchical namespace mock in test → `high_risk_count = 0` → `assert result.metadata["high_risk_count"] == 2` → **FAIL** (exposes the logic bug)

## Unchallenged Areas

- **Native vivisect loading** — Reason not challenged: out of scope, environment has no native Vivisect setup.
