analyzing-tls-config
Analyze a target's TLS configuration — negotiated protocol version, cipher suite, certificate chain, expiry, and downgrade vectors. Use when: SOC2 auditor flagged your endpoint for "weak TLS" but you don't know which control failed (TSC CC6.7 transmission integrity vs CC6.6 encryption) or which cipher is the problem. Threshold: any negotiated TLSv1.0 or TLSv1.1, OR a cipher with RC4 / 3DES / null / EXPORT, OR a cert with under 30 days to expiry, OR a chain that fails hostname verification. Trigger with: "audit tls", "check ssl config", "weak tls", "analyze tls".
Allowed Tools
Provided by Plugin
penetration-tester
Security testing toolkit with HTTP header analysis, dependency auditing, and static code scanning
Installation
This skill is included in the penetration-tester plugin:
/plugin install penetration-tester@claude-code-plugins-plus
Click to copy
Instructions
Analyzing TLS Configuration
Overview
This skill audits a target's TLS posture against current best practice
(NIST SP 800-52r2, Mozilla TLS Configuration Guidelines, PCI DSS v4.0 Req
4.2.1.1). It reports specific findings — not "your TLS is weak" but
"your server negotiated TLSv1.0 with RC4-SHA — see remediation".
When the skill produces findings
Specific failure thresholds, in order of severity:
| Finding | Severity | Threshold | Affected control |
|---|---|---|---|
| TLSv1.0 or TLSv1.1 negotiated | HIGH | Any handshake completes at v1.0/v1.1 | NIST 800-52r2 §3.1, PCI DSS Req 4.2.1.1 |
| Null / EXPORT / anonymous cipher | CRITICAL | Any null / EXPORT / aNULL in negotiated suite | NIST 800-52r2 §3.3.1 |
| RC4 / 3DES cipher | HIGH | Sweet32, RC4 biases | NIST 800-52r2 §3.3.1, PCI DSS Req 4.2.1.1 |
| Cert expires in <7 days | CRITICAL | notAfter - now ≤ 7d | NIST 800-52r2 §4.1 |
| Cert expires in <30 days | HIGH | notAfter - now ≤ 30d | NIST 800-52r2 §4.1 |
| Cert hostname mismatch | HIGH | SAN/CN doesn't match target host | RFC 6125 |
| Self-signed or untrusted CA | MEDIUM | Chain doesn't validate to system CA | Mozilla TLS Guidelines |
| Weak key (RSA < 2048, ECDSA < 256) | HIGH | Public key bits below threshold | NIST 800-52r2 §3.4 |
| Forward secrecy absent | MEDIUM | No ECDHE / DHE in negotiated suite | NIST 800-52r2 §3.3.1 |
Prerequisites
- Python 3.9+
opensslCLI (used for cipher enumeration the Pythonsslmodule can't introspect directly)- Authorization to test the target (active scan — see
references/AUTHORIZATION.md)
Instructions
Step 1 — Confirm Authorization
Active scan. Before invoking the scanner, ask the user verbatim:
> "Do you have authorization to perform TLS testing on this target?
> I need confirmation before proceeding."
If the user says yes, proceed. If unsure, ask them to obtain written
authorization. See references/AUTHORIZATION.md for the attestation
pattern. **Never run the scanner against a target the user does not own
or have written permission to test.**
Step 2 — Run the scanner
python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/analyzing-tls-config/scripts/analyze_tls.py \
https://target.example.com \
--authorized
The --authorized flag is required for any non-loopback / non-RFC1918
target (gate enforced in lib/authz_check.py).
Options:
Usage: analyze_tls.py URL [OPTIONS]
Options:
--authorized Attest authorization for non-local targets (required)
--port PORT Target port (default: 443)
--output FILE Write findings to FILE (default: stdout)
--format FMT json | jsonl | markdown (default: markdown)
--min-severity SEV Floor: critical|high|medium|low|info (default: info)
--timeout SECS Per-probe timeout (default: 10)
Step 3 — Interpret findings
The scanner emits one Finding per detected issue. For each:
- Read the severity band — CRITICAL and HIGH require immediate action.
- Read the affected control — map to the framework the user is audited against.
- Read the remediation — copy-paste-ready config snippets for nginx /
Caddy / Apache / HAProxy / AWS ALB / GCP LB.
- Cross-reference
references/PLAYBOOK.mdfor the full template if the
inline remediation is just a one-liner.
Step 4 — Report to user
Group findings by severity. For each, lead with the specific symptom
("TLSv1.0 negotiated") rather than the category ("transport security
problem"). Pair every finding with one remediation step the user can
take in the next 30 minutes.
Step 5 — Cross-skill chaining (optional)
If the user is doing a broader audit:
- After this skill runs, suggest
detecting-ssl-cert-issues(skill #2)
for deeper cert-chain analysis (revocation, CT log presence,
intermediate-cert order).
- For HTTP-layer security headers that complement TLS findings, suggest
checking-http-security-headers (skill #4) to audit HSTS preload
status, which is meaningless without proper TLS.
Examples
Example 1 — SOC2 audit prep on a production endpoint
User says: "Auditor flagged our checkout endpoint for weak TLS. Help me figure out what's wrong."
python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/analyzing-tls-config/scripts/analyze_tls.py \
https://checkout.example.com \
--authorized \
--min-severity high
Expected output: a Markdown report with each HIGH/CRITICAL finding, the
specific NIST/PCI control it violates, and a copy-paste remediation
snippet for the target server type. Pair with references/PLAYBOOK.md
for full templates.
Example 2 — CI integration on a staging gate
Pin the scan into the deploy pipeline before promotion:
- name: TLS posture check (staging)
run: |
python3 plugins/security/penetration-tester/skills/analyzing-tls-config/scripts/analyze_tls.py \
https://staging.example.com \
--authorized \
--min-severity high \
--format json \
--output tls-report.json
Exit code 1 fails the deploy if any HIGH/CRITICAL finding lands. The
JSON report uploads as a build artifact for the security team to
triage.
Example 3 — Quick local check during dev
For local services (carve-out applies — no --authorized needed):
python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/analyzing-tls-config/scripts/analyze_tls.py \
https://localhost:8443
Useful when prototyping TLS-terminating proxies (Caddy, Traefik) before
shipping to staging.
Output
Each finding includes:
skill_id:analyzing-tls-configtitle: imperative — e.g. "Server negotiates obsolete TLSv1.0"severity: critical / high / medium / low / infotarget: the URL scanneddetail: technical explanation of WHY this finding triggeredremediation: specific fixcvssscore/cweid: when applicableaffected_control: framework + control ID (e.g.NIST 800-52r2 §3.1)references: source URLs
JSON output is pipeable to jq for CI integration. Markdown output is
human-readable for direct sharing with the engineering team.
Exit codes: 0 clean (no high/critical), 1 findings (high or critical),
2 error (auth missing, target unreachable, unparseable input).
Error Handling
--authorized missing for non-local target → exit 2 with attestation
message pointing to references/AUTHORIZATION.md. Re-run with the flag
after confirming authorization.
Target unreachable → exit 2 with the underlying socket error. Common
causes: firewall blocks port 443, DNS resolution failure, server not
listening on the configured port (try --port).
Certificate chain incomplete → finding emitted at MEDIUM severity (the
scanner does not bail; it captures what was sent and reports the gap).
Resources
references/THEORY.md— How TLS negotiation works, why each finding
matters, primary RFC references
references/PLAYBOOK.md— Copy-paste remediation templates per finding
for nginx, Caddy, Apache, HAProxy, AWS ALB, GCP LB
references/AUTHORIZATION.md— Authorization attestation pattern + ROE
example for active scans