python-insecure-design

Python security rules based on OWASP A04, the category covering insecure application design. They flag missing input checks, hardcoded business rules, missing API rate limits, and unsafe default settings.

In plain words
What is it for?
Reviewing Python code for input validation, rate limiting, configuration, and other insecure design patterns.
Why use it?
They help reveal design choices that can let attackers misuse an application or make security difficult to maintain.

Cursor rule for Cursor

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add rules/abderrahimghazali/cursor-rules/python-insecure-design
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/abderrahimghazali/cursor-rules

Made for: Cursor.

Per session 0 Nothing until a file matches its globs; then the whole rule loads.
When invoked 2,425 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00000 $0.02425
Opus 5 $0.00000 $0.01213
Sonnet 5 $0.00000 $0.00485
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00243

Measured yesterday against content hash 6b510f95ccdb, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

python-insecure-design scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

.cursor/rules/python-insecure-design.mdc · 252 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 252 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Python Insecure Design Security Standards (OWASP A04:2021)

This rule enforces security best practices to prevent insecure design vulnerabilities in Python applications, as defined in OWASP Top 10:2021-A04.

actions:

  • type: enforce conditions:

    Pattern 1: Lack of input validation

    • pattern: "def\s+[a-zA-Z0-9_]+\([^)]\):\s(?![^#]*validate|[^#]*clean|[^#]*sanitize|[^#]*check|[^#]*is_valid)" message: "Function lacks input validation. Consider implementing validation for all user-supplied inputs."

    Pattern 2: Hardcoded business rules

    • pattern: "if\s+[a-zA-Z0-9_]+\s*(==|!=|>|<|>=|<=)\s*['"][^'"]+['"]:" message: "Hardcoded business rules detected. Consider using configuration files or database-driven rules for better maintainability."

    Pattern 3: Lack of rate limiting

    • pattern: "@(app|api|route|blueprint)\.(get|post|put|delete|patch)\([^)]\)\s\n\s*(?![^#]*rate_limit|[^#]*throttle|[^#]*limiter)" message: "API endpoint lacks rate limiting. Consider implementing rate limiting to prevent abuse."

    Pattern 4: Insecure default configurations

    • pattern: "DEBUG\s*=\sTrue|DEVELOPMENT\s=\sTrue|TESTING\s=\s*True" message: "Insecure default configuration detected. Ensure debug/development modes are disabled in production."

    Pattern 5: Lack of error handling

    • pattern: "(?<!try:\s*\n)[^#]\n\s(?!except|finally)" message: "Consider implementing proper error handling with try-except blocks for operations that might fail."

    Pattern 6: Insecure direct object references

    • pattern: "get_object_or_404\(\s*[^,]+,\spk\s=\srequest\.(GET|POST|args|form|json)\[['"][^'"]+['"]\]\s\)|get\(\sid\s=\s*request\.(GET|POST|args|form|json)" message: "Potential insecure direct object reference. Validate user's permission to access the requested object."

    Pattern 7: Missing authentication checks

    • pattern: "@(app|api|route|blueprint)\.(get|post|put|delete|patch)\([^)]\)\s\n\s*(?!.@login_required|.@auth\.login_required|.*@jwt_required|.*current_user|.*request\.user)" message: "Endpoint lacks authentication checks. Consider adding authentication requirements for sensitive operations."

    Pattern 8: Lack of proper logging

    • pattern: "except\s+[a-zA-Z0-9_]+\s*(?:as\s+[a-zA-Z0-9_]+)?:\s*(?!.*logger\.|.*logging\.|.*print)" message: "Exception caught without proper logging. Implement proper logging for exceptions to aid in debugging and monitoring."

    Pattern 9: Insecure file uploads

    • pattern: "request\.files\[['"][^'"]+['"]\]|FileField\(|FileStorage\(" message: "File upload functionality detected. Ensure proper validation of file types, sizes, and implement virus scanning if applicable."

    Pattern 10: Lack of security headers

    • pattern: "response\.(headers|set_header)\([^)]\)|return\s+Response\([^)]\)|return\s+make_response\([^)]*\)" message: "Consider adding security headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, etc.) to HTTP responses."
  • type: suggest message: | Python Secure Design Best Practices:

    1. Implement Defense in Depth:

      • Layer security controls throughout your application
      • Don't rely on a single security mechanism
      • Assume that each security layer can be bypassed
    2. Use Secure Defaults:

      • Start with secure configurations by default
      • Require explicit opt-in for less secure options
      • Example for Flask:
        app.config.update(
            SESSION_COOKIE_SECURE=True,
            SESSION_COOKIE_HTTPONLY=True,
            SESSION_COOKIE_SAMESITE='Lax',
            PERMANENT_SESSION_LIFETIME=timedelta(hours=1)
        )
        

Read the full file on GitHub · 252 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. yesterday First seen · 252 lines · 2,425 tokens per session scan A 6b510f95ccdb

Subscribe to this mod's changes

python-insecure-design is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository abderrahimghazali/cursor-rules (2 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,425 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.