offensive-parameter-pollution skill

by SnailSploit·SnailSploit/Claude-Red·7.0k stars·MIT

No description in the SKILL.md.

C64/100content scan

Is the offensive-parameter-pollution skill safe?

Read the findings before you install it. We read 1 file in the folder on 2026-09-28.

highSKILL.md:367
Reads credential files (SSH keys, cloud or package-manager tokens) that a skill has no normal reason to touch.
```
https://example.com/upload?xml=safe&xml=<!DOCTYPE test [ <!ENTITY xxe SYSTEM "file:///etc/passwd"> ]>
```
lowSKILL.md:1
The name should be 1 to 64 lowercase letters, digits or hyphens.
```
(missing)
```
lowSKILL.md:1
No description, so an agent cannot tell when to use the skill.
```
(missing)
```

Install the offensive-parameter-pollution 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/web/offensive-parameter-pollution ~/.claude/skills/offensive-parameter-pollution

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

SKILL: HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP)

Metadata

Skill Name: parameter-pollution
Folder: offensive-parameter-pollution
Source: https://github.com/SnailSploit/offensive-checklist/blob/main/parameter-pollution.md

Description

HTTP parameter pollution (HPP) checklist: duplicate parameter injection, backend vs frontend parsing differences, WAF bypass via HPP, server-side vs client-side HPP, and practical exploitation patterns. Use when testing web applications for parameter handling flaws.

Trigger Phrases

Use this skill when the conversation involves any of: parameter pollution, HTTP parameter pollution, HPP, duplicate parameter, WAF bypass, parsing differences, server-side HPP, client-side HPP, parameter injection

Instructions for Claude

When this skill is active:

Load and apply the full methodology below as your operational checklist
Follow steps in order unless the user specifies otherwise
For each technique, consider applicability to the current target/context
Track which checklist items have been completed
Suggest next steps based on findings

Full Methodology

HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP)

Mechanisms

HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) is a web attack technique that exploits how web applications and servers handle multiple occurrences of the same parameter name. When a web application receives duplicate parameters, different technologies process them differently:

flowchart TD
    subgraph "HTTP Parameter Pollution"
    A[Multiple occurrences of same parameter] --> B{Server Technology}
    B -->|ASP.NET/IIS| C[Uses first occurrence]
    B -->|PHP/Apache| D[Uses last occurrence]
    B -->|JSP/Tomcat| E[Uses first occurrence]
    B -->|Perl CGI| F[Concatenates with comma]
    B -->|Python/Flask| G[Builds array of values]
    B -->|Node.js/Express| H[Uses first occurrence]
    end

Parameter Handling Behaviors

ASP.NET/IIS: Uses the first occurrence of the parameter
PHP/Apache: Uses the last occurrence of the parameter
JSP/Tomcat: Uses the first occurrence of the parameter
Perl CGI/Apache: Concatenates all occurrences with a comma delimiter
Python/Flask: Builds an array of values
Node.js/Express: Uses the first occurrence by default

Notes and modern caveats

Node.js express uses either querystring (first-wins) or qs (arrays/last-wins). app.set('query parser', 'extended') changes behavior. Many middlewares assume param[]=a&param[]=b for arrays; duplicates without [] can produce surprising results.
Spring MVC/Spring Boot binders often collect duplicates into lists; API gateways (Kong, APIGEE, NGINX, Cloudflare) may collapse/normalize differently than backends.
JSON duplicate keys: most parsers accept last-wins; some gateways reject duplicates while backends accept, creating precedence gaps.
Cookies: duplicate cookie names and comma/semicolon handling vary by proxies/agents.

HPP attacks leverage these inconsistencies in parameter handling across application layers, servers, proxies, and frameworks. Two main types of HPP exist:

Server-side HPP: Exploiting the server's handling of multiple parameters
Client-side HPP: Manipulating parameters that are later processed by client-side code

Hunt

Identifying HPP Vulnerabilities

sequenceDiagram
    participant Attacker
    participant WebApp
    participant Backend

    Attacker->>WebApp: Request with duplicate parameter<br/>param=safe&param=malicious
    Note over WebApp: Layer 1 processes first value
    WebApp->>Backend: Forward request to backend
    Note over Backend: Layer 2 processes last value
    Backend->>WebApp: Process with malicious value
    WebApp->>Attacker: Response

Testing Parameter Handling

Identify forms and request parameters
Test duplicate parameters with different values:

// Original request
   https://example.com/search?param=value1

   // Test request
   https://example.com/search?param=value1&param=value2

Observe application behavior
Identify which value is used (first, last, concatenated)

Vulnerable Scenarios

Parameter Overriding: Search for places where parameters might be overridden
Request Proxies: Applications forwarding requests to other services
Query String Processing: Applications that process query strings manually
Multiple-Layer Processing: Applications where parameters pass through multiple layers
OAuth/SAML Flows: Authentication flows where parameters may be manipulated

Testing Techniques

URL Parameter Pollution

# Original URL
https://target.com/page?parameter=original_value

# Polluted URL
https://target.com/page?parameter=original_value&parameter=malicious_value

Form Parameter Pollution

Intercept a legitimate form submission
Add duplicate parameters with different values:

// Original POST body
   parameter=original_value

   // Modified POST body
   parameter=original_value&parameter=malicious_value

Hybrid Parameter Pollution

Combining parameters in both URL and POST body:

// URL
https://target.com/page?parameter=url_value

// POST body
parameter=body_value

JSON Parameter Pollution

Testing duplicate keys in JSON objects:

{
  "parameter": "value1",
  "parameter": "value2"
}

Also test:

Cookie: role=user; role=admin
X-Role: user
X-Role: admin

Observe which value the application trusts.

GraphQL Parameter Pollution

GraphQL queries can be polluted through aliasing, batch mutations, and duplicate variables:

# Alias pollution - bypass rate limits
query {
  a: user(id: 1) {
    name
    email
  }
  b: user(id: 2) {
    name
    email
  }
  c: user(id: 3) {
    name
    email
  }
  # ... repeat to z or beyond
}

# Variable pollution
query ($id: Int!, $id: Int!) {
  user(id: $id) {
    name
  }
}

# Batch mutation pollution
mutation {
  a: redeemCoupon(code: "SAVE50") {
    success
  }
  b: redeemCoupon(code: "SAVE50") {
    success
  }
  c: redeemCoupon(code: "SAVE50") {
    success
  }
}

WebSocket Parameter Pollution

WebSocket connections can carry polluted parameters in the upgrade request or message payloads:

GET /chat HTTP/1.1
Host: vulnerable.com
Upgrade: websocket
Connection: Upgrade
Sec-WebSocket-Key: dGhlIHNhbXBsZSBub25jZQ==
Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13

# URL with polluted params
ws://vulnerable.com/chat?token=valid&token=malicious&room=1&room=admin

// WebSocket message payload pollution
{
  "action": "sendMessage",
  "room": "public",
  "room": "admin",
  "message": "test"
}

Parameter Array Notation Pollution

Different frameworks handle array notation differently, creating pollution opportunities:

# PHP - expects brackets
param[]=value1&param[]=value2

# Express (qs parser) - bracket optional
param=value1&param=value2

# Rails - numeric indices
param[0]=value1&param[1]=value2

# Mixed notation confusion
param=single&param[]=array1&param[0]=indexed

Testing strategy:

Test with param=a&param=b (no brackets)
Test with param[]=a&param[]=b (array notation)
Test with param[0]=a&param[1]=b (indexed)
Mix notations to confuse parsers

Parameter Cloaking

Using encoding and case variations to bypass filters:

# URL encoding variations
param=value1&par%61m=value2
param=value1&PARAM=value2

# Double/triple encoding
param=value1&par%2561m=value2

# Unicode normalization
param=value1&pαram=value2  # Greek alpha instead of 'a'

# Null byte injection (legacy)
param=value1&param%00=value2

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-abuseAdvanced 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.
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.

All agent skills → · MCP servers