Mmcp.market

hunt-tls-network skill

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

Hunt TLS/SSL and DNS misconfigurations — missing HSTS (downgrade attack), weak cipher suites, expired/invalid certificates, mTLS bypass, missing SPF/DKIM/DMARC (email spoofing), DNS Zone Transfer (AXFR), dangling CNAME subdomain takeover, CAA records. Most of these are Info/Low on their own — this skill is opinionated about which findings actually pay (spoofable DMARC with delivered-to-inbox proof, AXFR returning internal hosts, dangling-CNAME takeover) versus which get rejected as best-practice noise (missing CAA, missing HSTS with no MitM position). Use during recon to find infrastructure weaknesses, and to TRIAGE them honestly before reporting.

A100/100content scan

Is the hunt-tls-network 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-tls-network 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-tls-network ~/.claude/skills/hunt-tls-network
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-TLS-NETWORK — TLS/SSL & DNS Security

Reality Check (Read First)

Most findings in this class are Info/Low and routinely rejected as "best-practice" / "missing-hardening" by triage. This skill exists to stop you wasting a submission. Two questions before you report anything here:

  1. Is there a real victim and a real action? "Missing HSTS" is not a vulnerability — demonstrated session-cookie capture from a victim you MitM'd is. "Missing CAA" is never a vulnerability you can demonstrate.
  2. Does the program accept it? Many programs explicitly list missing SPF/DMARC, missing security headers, weak ciphers without exploit, and CAA as out of scope. Read scope first; quote the in-scope line in your report.

What actually pays in this class (in order):

  • Dangling-CNAME / dangling-A subdomain takeover — you control content on target.com subdomain. Real impact, real bounty. (Owned in depth by hunt-subdomain; covered here for the TLS/DNS recon angle.)
  • Spoofable DMARC, proven by delivered-to-inbox email — not "p=none exists" but an actual mail from ceo@target.com landing in a real inbox with a passing/none DMARC verdict in the headers.
  • DNS AXFR returning internal hosts — full internal hostname/IP map. Concrete recon value, often Medium.
  • mTLS / client-cert bypass on an internal service — reaching authenticated-only functionality without the cert. Real auth bypass = High.
  • Exploited TLS weakness with a working decrypt/MitM PoC — almost never achievable remotely in 2024-2026 against a patched stack; see Phase 1 caveats.

What does NOT pay (do not report standalone): missing CAA, missing HSTS with no MitM PoC, missing security headers alone, weak-cipher support without an exploit, self-signed cert on a non-prod host, TLS 1.0/1.1 enabled without a downgrade victim.

Phase 1 — TLS/SSL Audit

# Quick TLS test with testssl.sh
brew install testssl
testssl.sh --fast $TARGET 2>/dev/null | grep -E "CRITICAL|HIGH|MEDIUM|OK|NOT" | head -30

# Or use sslyze (Python)
pip3 install sslyze
python3 -m sslyze $TARGET --json_out /tmp/sslyze_$TARGET.json 2>/dev/null
cat /tmp/sslyze_$TARGET.json | python3 -m json.tool | grep -i "vulnerability\|insecure\|error" | head -20

# Check certificate expiry and chain
echo | openssl s_client -connect $TARGET:443 -servername $TARGET 2>/dev/null | \
  openssl x509 -noout -dates -subject -issuer 2>/dev/null

# Check for weak ciphers manually (a successful handshake = the cipher is OFFERED, not exploitable)
openssl s_client -connect $TARGET:443 -cipher RC4-SHA 2>/dev/null | grep -i "cipher\|handshake"
openssl s_client -connect $TARGET:443 -cipher DES-CBC3-SHA 2>/dev/null | grep -i "cipher\|handshake"

# Protocol downgrade surface — TLS 1.0/1.1 still negotiable?
openssl s_client -connect $TARGET:443 -tls1   2>/dev/null | grep -E "Protocol|Cipher"
openssl s_client -connect $TARGET:443 -tls1_1 2>/dev/null | grep -E "Protocol|Cipher"

Accuracy / triage notes — do not over-claim TLS bugs:

  • Offered ≠ exploitable. testssl/sslyze flagging RC4, 3DES, or TLS 1.0 means the server negotiates it. That is a hardening finding, not a demonstrated decrypt. Without a PoC it is Info/Low and frequently OOS.
  • SWEET32 (CVE-2016-2183) — 3DES birthday attack. Requires a long-lived TLS session, an on-path attacker, and ~hundreds of GB / hours of same-key traffic. Realistically un-demonstrable in a bug bounty; report only the support of 3DES, expect Low/Info.
  • POODLE (CVE-2014-3566) — SSLv3 CBC padding oracle. Needs SSLv3 actually enabled; almost no modern stack offers it. Confirm with testssl.sh --poodle (or nmap --script ssl-poodle) — modern OpenSSL 3.x dropped the -ssl3 flag. If SSLv3 won't negotiate, there is no POODLE.
  • FREAK (CVE-2015-0204) and DROWN (CVE-2016-0800) — require export-grade RSA / a shared SSLv2 endpoint respectively. Both are pre-conditions you must prove present, not assume. DROWN needs SSLv2 reachable on some host sharing the cert/key — scan for SSLv2 with testssl.sh --drown (or nmap --script sslv2-drown) across the cert's SAN list before claiming it; modern OpenSSL has no -ssl2 flag.
  • Heartbleed (CVE-2014-0160) — if you genuinely find an unpatched OpenSSL 1.0.1 leaking memory, that is High/Critical with a real PoC (dump containing keys/cookies). Verify with testssl.sh --heartbleed and capture leaked bytes; this is the rare TLS bug worth a full report.

Phase 2 — HSTS Check

# Check HSTS header on main domain and all subdomains
curl -sI "https://$TARGET/" | grep -i "strict-transport-security"
# Expected: Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload

# Check critical subdomains (login, api, auth)
for sub in login auth api account pay www; do
  HSTS=$(curl -sI "https://$sub.$TARGET/" 2>/dev/null | grep -i "strict-transport-security")
  if [ -z "$HSTS" ]; then
    echo "[!] MISSING HSTS: https://$sub.$TARGET/"
  else
    echo "[OK] $sub.$TARGET: $HSTS"
  fi
done

# Check HTTP (non-HTTPS) redirect
curl -sI "http://$TARGET/" | grep -i "location"
# Should redirect to HTTPS immediately

# HSTS preload check
curl -s "https://hstspreload.org/api/v2/status?domain=$TARGET" | python3 -m json.tool 2>/dev/null

Phase 3 — DNS Zone Transfer (AXFR)

# Find nameservers
dig NS $TARGET +short

# Attempt zone transfer on each nameserver
for NS in $(dig NS $TARGET +short); do
  echo "=== Trying AXFR from $NS ==="
  dig AXFR $TARGET @$NS 2>/dev/null | grep -v "^;" | head -30
done

# Zone transfer via alternative tools
host -t AXFR $TARGET $(dig NS $TARGET +short | head -1) 2>/dev/null | head -30
nmap -sn --script dns-zone-transfer $TARGET 2>/dev/null | head -30

# If AXFR succeeds → full internal hostname map
# Look for: internal IPs, staging servers, admin hostnames, CI/CD servers

Phase 4 — Email Security (SPF/DKIM/DMARC)

# Check SPF record
dig TXT $TARGET +short | grep "v=spf1"
# Missing SPF → potential email spoofing

# Check DMARC
dig TXT _dmarc.$TARGET +short
# Missing DMARC → attacker can send as @target.com with no enforcement

# Check DKIM selectors (common: default, google, mail, k1)
for selector in default google mail k1 selector1 selector2 s1 s2 dkim; do
  RESULT=$(dig TXT $selector._domainkey.$TARGET +short 2>/dev/null)
  [ -n "$RESULT" ] && echo "DKIM selector found: $selector → $RESULT"
done

# --- Spoofability evaluation (heuristic only; PROOF is the swaks test below) ---
SPF=$(dig +short TXT $TARGET | tr -d '"' | grep -i "v=spf1")
DMARC=$(dig +short TXT _dmarc.$TARGET | tr -d '"' | grep -i "v=DMARC1")

# SPF "+all" / "all" with no qualifier = pass-everything = spoofable from any IP
echo "$SPF" | grep -Eq '[+ ]all($|[^-~?])' && echo "[CRITICAL] SPF passes all senders (+all)"
echo "$SPF" | grep -q "~all" && echo "[INFO] SPF softfail (~all) — may still deliver to inbox"
[ -z "$SPF" ] && echo "[INFO] No SPF record"

# Correct DMARC-absence check: test the variable for emptiness, do NOT pipe dig|wc -c
if [ -z "$DMARC" ]; then
  echo "[INFO] No DMARC record (no published policy)"
else
  POL

Why the original dig ... | wc -c | grep '^1$' check was broken: empty dig +short output is a zero-length string; piped through wc -c it usually yields 0, and the surrounding newline handling is shell-dependent, so the ^1$ match misfires both ways. Always capture into a variable and test [ -z "$VAR" ].

Spoofability is a RECEIVER decision, not a record-reading exercise

Do not report "missing DMARC = email spoofing" from dig output alone. DMARC p=none (or absent) means the sending domain published no enforcement — but the receiving mail provider (Gmail, M365, the program's own MX) may still junk or reject your spoof based on SPF, its own heuristics, or ARC. The only proof that survives triage is a message you delivered to a real inbox.

# PROOF: send a spoofed mail and confirm INBOX delivery (use a tester account you own)
# Use an account on the receiver the program actually uses (check their MX: dig MX $TARGET)
swaks --to your-tester@gmail.com \
      --from "CEO <ceo@$TARGET>" \
      --header "Subject: [TEST] DMARC spoof PoC for $TARGET" \
      --body "Authorized bug-bounty test. Spoofed from-domain: $TARGET" \
      --server <an-smtp-relay-you-control-or-localhost>

Confirmation gate — a spoof PoC is only valid if you can show:

  1. The message landed in Inbox (not Spam/Junk), screenshot the folder.
  2. The raw headers: Authentication-Results: showing dmarc=none|fail AND the mail was still delivered (not bounced). A bounce or a Spam-folder landing is NOT a finding — note it and move on.
  3. The visible From: shows @$TARGET to the recipient (header-from spoof, the one that matters for phishing), not just an envelope-from trick.

Severity is Medium at best, and only if delivered-to-inbox. Many programs mark email-auth findings OOS outright — check scope first.

Phase 5 — Security Headers Audit

# Check all security headers
HEADERS=$(curl -sI "https://$TARGET/")

# Check each critical header
for HEADER in "Strict-Transport-Security" "Content-Security-Policy" "X-Frame-Options" \
              "X-Content-Type-Options" "Referrer-Policy" "Permissions-Policy"; do
  RESULT=$(echo "$HEADERS" | grep -i "$HEADER")
  if [ -z "$RESULT" ]; then
    echo "[MISSING] $HEADER"
  else
    echo "[OK] $HEADER: $RESULT"
  fi
done

# Automated security headers check
curl -s "https://securityheaders.com/?q=https://$TARGET&followRedirects=on" | \
  grep -oP "grade-\K[A-F+]" | head -3

Phase 6 — Certificate Transparency (Subdomain Discovery)

# crt.sh — certificate transparency logs
curl -s "https://crt.sh/?q=%25.$TARGET&output=json" | \
  python3 -m json.tool 2>/dev/null | grep "name_value" | \
  grep -oP '"name_value": "\K[^"]+' | \
  sed 's/\*\.//g' | sort -u > recon/$TARGET/ct-subdomains.txt

echo "[+] CT subdomains found: $(wc -l < recon/$TARGET/ct-subdomains.txt)"

# Compare with existing subdomain list
comm -23 <(sort recon/$TARGET/ct-subdomains.txt) \
         <(sort recon/$TARGET/subdomains.txt 2>/dev/null) | head -20
# New entries = recently issued certs = new services to investigate

Phase 6.5 — Dangling Records → Subdomain Takeover (the finding that actually pays)

This is the highest-impact item in the whole skill. A CNAME/A record pointing at a deprovisioned third-party resource (S3 bucket, Azure CDN/App Service, GitHub Pages, Heroku, Fastly, etc.) lets you claim that resource and serve content from *.target.com. Full depth lives in hunt-subdomain; here is the TLS/DNS-recon entry point.

# For each subdomain from CT logs, resolve the CNAME chain and check for a live origin
while read sub; do
  CNAME=$(dig +short CNAME "$sub" | head -1)
  [ -z "$CNAME" ] && continue
  CODE=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" --max-time 8 "https://$sub/" 2>/dev/null)
  echo "$sub -> $CNAME  [http $CODE]"
done < recon/$TARGET/ct-subdomains.txt | tee recon/$TARGET/cname-map.txt

# Flag CNAMEs that point at known takeoverable providers, then confirm the
# fingerprint string in the body (e.g. "NoSuchBucket", "There isn't a GitHub Pages site here",
# "Fastly error: unknown domain", "The specified bucket does not exist", Azure "Web App - Unavailable").

Validation gate — a takeover claim requires you to actually claim it:

  1. Confirm the dangling target is unregistered/claimable (the S3 bucket name is free, the Heroku app does not exist, etc.) — the provider error fingerprint alone is necessary but NOT sufficient.
  2. Register the resource yourself and serve a unique canary file, e.g. https://$sub/.txt returning a string only you know. Screenshot it served over the victim subdomain with valid TLS.
  3. Tear it down immediately after PoC; never leave attacker-controlled content live on the target's domain.

Impact: cookie scope theft (cookies set for .target.com), OAuth redirecturi/CORS-trust abuse, phishing on a trusted origin. Typically High** (Critical if it sits at an OAuth/SSO redirect or shares session cookies).

Phase 7 — CAA Records (recon signal only — NOT a reportable finding)

# CAA records DECLARE which CAs the domain owner permits to issue certs.
dig CAA $TARGET +short
dig CAA "*.$TARGET" +short

Do NOT report "missing CAA" as a vulnerability. This is the most common false positive in this class. Correct framing:

  • A missing CAA record does not let any attacker obtain a certificate. It only means the owner has not opted into restricting which CAs may issue. With or without CAA, an attacker still needs to pass Domain Control Validation (HTTP-01 / DNS-01 / email) — which requires already controlling the domain, DNS, or web root.
  • The "fraudulent issuance" scenario requires CA compromise or social-engineering a CA into mis-issuing. That is out of scope for essentially every bug-bounty program and is not something you can demonstrate. CAA enforcement is a CA-side control, not an attacker-facing surface.
  • CAA is Info-tier hardening at most, and routinely closed as Won't-Fix / OOS. Mention it in a recon notes appendix if at all; never file it standalone.

Where CAA recon IS useful (no finding, just intel): the issue/issuewild values tell you which CA the org uses (e.g. letsencrypt.org, digicert.com, amazon.com). That hints at automation (ACME) and at where a real takeover (Phase 6.5 dangling records) could let you mint a valid cert via DCV because you'd control the host.

Phase 8 — mTLS Bypass Attempts

# Check if endpoint requires client certificate
curl -sk "https://$TARGET/internal/" 2>&1 | grep -i "ssl\|certificate\|403\|401"

# Try without client cert (should fail)
curl -sk --cert "" "https://$TARGET/internal/api" | head -5

# Try common bypass paths (some apps skip mTLS on health checks)
for path in /health /ping /status /metrics /api/health; do
  STATUS=$(curl -sk -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" "https://$TARGET$path")
  echo "$path: $STATUS"
done

# Header-injection bypass — nginx/HAProxy/Envoy commonly terminate mTLS at the edge and
# forward the verdict as a request header the backend trusts. If the edge does NOT strip
# client-supplied copies of that header, you spoof a verified client. Try the real header
# names used by each proxy:
for combo in \
  "X-SSL-Client-Verify: SUCCESS|X-SSL-Client-S-DN: CN=admin" \
  "ssl-client-verify: SUCCESS|ssl-client-subject-dn: CN=admin" \
  "X-Client-Verify: SUCCESS|X-Client-DN: CN=admin,O=target" \
  "X-Forwarded-Client-Cert: By=spiffe://x;Hash=0;Subject=\"CN=admin\""; do
  H1="${combo%%|*}"; H2="${combo##*|}"
  echo "== $H1 / $H2 =="
  curl -sk "https://$TARGET/internal/api" -H "$H1" -H "$H2" -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}\n"
done

mTLS-bypass validation — this is a real auth bypass, so prove access, not just a status code:

  • A 200 could be a generic page. Confirm you reached authenticated-only functionality: show data/an action that is impossible without the client cert (e.g. an admin-only object, an internal-only response body).
  • Distinguish server policy from server state: a 403 flipping to 200 with the spoofed header is meaningful; a 200 for both with and without the header means the path was never protected (no finding).
  • For the bypass-path angle (/health, /metrics): only a finding if that endpoint exposes sensitive data (internal IPs, build secrets, Prometheus metrics revealing internal topology) — an empty 200 OK health probe is not.
  • Capture the request/response pair in Burp Repeater so the spoofed header → privileged response is unambiguous.

Chain Table

Severities below are calibrated to what triage actually accepts. They are deliberately conservative; do not inflate them in a report.

Tools

# testssl.sh — comprehensive TLS audit
brew install testssl
testssl.sh $TARGET

# sslyze — Python TLS scanner
pip3 install sslyze

# MXToolbox for email security
curl -s "https://mxtoolbox.com/api/v1/Lookup/spf?argument=$TARGET" 2>/dev/null

# dmarc-inspector
curl -s "https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-inspector/?domain=$TARGET" 2>/dev/null

Validation

Each finding ships only with the proof listed — never the dig/header output alone.

  • Subdomain takeover: you registered the dangling resource and served a unique canary over https://sub.target.com/ with valid TLS. Screenshot + canary string. (Tear down after.)
  • mTLS bypass: spoofed client-verify header returns privileged data/action that the cert-required path otherwise denies. Burp request/response pair.
  • AXFR: zone transfer returns internal hostnames/IPs from an authoritative NS. Full transcript.
  • DMARC spoof: swaks-sent mail with From: @target.com delivered to a real Inbox (not Spam), raw Authentication-Results headers attached. A bounce or Spam landing = no finding.
  • HSTS missing: only reportable with a working downgrade PoC capturing a victim cookie over plaintext — otherwise it is best-practice noise.

Severity (conservative — matches the Chain Table):

  • Subdomain takeover (claimed): High (Critical at OAuth/SSO redirect or shared session cookie)
  • mTLS bypass to authed functionality: High
  • AXFR returning internal hosts: Medium
  • DMARC spoof delivered-to-inbox: Medium (often OOS — verify scope)
  • HSTS missing on auth (with downgrade PoC): Low–Medium; without PoC: Info
  • Weak cipher support without decrypt PoC: Info–Low
  • Missing security headers / missing CAA only: Info (usually do not file)

Pre-submission scope gate: before filing ANY item here, confirm the program does not list it as out of scope (email-auth, missing-headers, weak-TLS-without-exploit, and CAA are commonly OOS). Quote the in-scope line in your report.

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