Mmcp.market

offensive-request-smuggling skill

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

No description in the SKILL.md.

A94/100content scan

Is the offensive-request-smuggling skill safe?

Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 1 file in the folder on 2026-09-28.

  • 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-request-smuggling 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-request-smuggling ~/.claude/skills/offensive-request-smuggling
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 Request Smuggling

Metadata

  • Skill Name: request-smuggling
  • Folder: offensive-request-smuggling
  • Source: https://github.com/SnailSploit/offensive-checklist/blob/main/req-smuggle.md

Description

HTTP request smuggling checklist: CL.TE, TE.CL, TE.TE variants, detection with timing and differential responses, WAF bypass, cache poisoning, credential hijacking, and request smuggling via HTTP/2. Use when testing reverse proxy/load balancer configurations.

Trigger Phrases

Use this skill when the conversation involves any of: request smuggling, HTTP smuggling, CL.TE, TE.CL, TE.TE, HTTP/2 smuggling, cache poisoning, WAF bypass, differential response, smuggling detection, proxy desync

Instructions for Claude

When this skill is active:

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

Full Methodology

HTTP Request Smuggling

Mechanisms

HTTP Request Smuggling is a vulnerability that occurs when front-end and back-end servers interpret HTTP requests differently, leading to a desynchronization in the HTTP request processing chain. This desynchronization allows attackers to "smuggle" requests to the back-end server, potentially bypassing security controls or manipulating how other users' requests are processed.

graph TD
    A[Client] -->|HTTP Request| B[Front-end Server]
    B -->|Interpreted Request| C[Back-end Server]
    B -->|Different Interpretation| D[Desynchronization]
    D -->|Smuggled Request| C
    D -->|Security Bypass| E[Unauthorized Access]
    D -->|Queue Poisoning| F[Response Hijacking]

Request smuggling vulnerabilities arise from inconsistencies in how servers parse and interpret HTTP messages, particularly regarding:

  • Transfer-Encoding (TE) header: Indicates chunked encoding
  • Content-Length (CL) header: Specifies the length of the message body
  • Header parsing: Different handling of whitespace, newlines, and malformed headers

Common desynchronization scenarios include:

  • CL.TE: Front-end uses Content-Length, back-end uses Transfer-Encoding
  • TE.CL: Front-end uses Transfer-Encoding, back-end uses Content-Length
  • TE.TE: Both servers use Transfer-Encoding but handle edge cases differently

HTTP/2/3 specific desync variants:

  • H2.CL / H2.TE: Conflicts between HTTP/2 body length signaling and HTTP/1 backends during downgrade.
  • H2C Upgrade: Cleartext HTTP/2 (h2c) upgrade paths mishandled by intermediaries.
  • Authority/Host Confusion: :authority vs Host normalization inconsistencies under CDNs.
graph LR
    subgraph "CL.TE Attack"
        A1[Client] -->|"POST / HTTP/1.1<br>Content-Length: 30<br>Transfer-Encoding: chunked<br><br>0<br><br>GET /admin HTTP/1.1<br>X-Ignore:"| B1[Front-end]
        B1 -->|"Uses Content-Length: 30<br>Sees one complete request"| C1[Back-end]
        C1 -->|"Uses Transfer-Encoding<br>Sees two requests:<br>1. POST /<br>2. GET /admin"| D1[Smuggled Request Processed]
    end

Modern variations include:

  • H2.HTTP/1: HTTP/2 to HTTP/1 downgrades causing inconsistencies
  • HTTP/1.H2: HTTP/1 to HTTP/2 transitions with different interpretations
  • Timeout-based: Exploiting time differences in connection handling
  • Method-based: Different interpretations of HTTP methods
  • Header-based: Inconsistent header parsing between servers

Hunt

Identifying Vulnerable Applications

Architecture Reconnaissance

  • Look for multi-server architectures with proxies, load balancers, or CDNs
  • Identify systems using Nginx, HAProxy, Varnish, or Amazon ALB/CloudFront
  • Check for HTTP/2 support with HTTP/1 backend compatibility

Basic Detection Tests

  1. CL.TE Vulnerability Detection (Time Delay Example):
POST / HTTP/1.1
   Host: vulnerable-website.com
   Transfer-Encoding: chunked
   Content-Length: 4

   1
   A
   X

Send this request, then send a normal request. If the normal request experiences a time delay, CL.TE might be present.

  1. TE.CL Vulnerability Detection (Time Delay Example):
POST / HTTP/1.1
   Host: vulnerable-website.com
   Transfer-Encoding: chunked
   Content-Length: 6

   0

   X

Send this request, then send a normal request. If the normal request experiences a time delay, TE.CL might be present.

  1. CL.TE Confirmation (Example):
POST / HTTP/1.1
   Host: your-lab-id.web-security-academy.net
   Connection: keep-alive
   Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
   Content-Length: 6
   Transfer-Encoding: chunked

   0

   G

Send twice. The second response should indicate an unrecognized method like GPOST.

(Ensure Burp's "Update Content-Length" is unchecked)

  1. TE.CL Confirmation (Example):
POST / HTTP/1.1
   Host: your-lab-id.web-security-academy.net
   Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
   Content-length: 4
   Transfer-Encoding: chunked

   5c
   GPOST / HTTP/1.1
   Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
   Content-Length: 15

   x=1
   0

Send twice. The second request should show the effect of the smuggled GPOST.

(Ensure Burp's "Update Content-Length" is unchecked)

  1. TE.TE Desync Detection (Obfuscation Example):
POST / HTTP/1.1
   Host: your-lab-id.web-security-academy.net
   Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
   Content-length: 4
   Transfer-Encoding: chunked
   Transfer-encoding: cow

   5c
   GPOST / HTTP/1.1
   Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
   Content-Length: 15

   x=1
   0

Send twice. The second request should show the effect of the smuggled GPOST, confirming that one server ignored the obfuscated Transfer-encoding: cow header.

Advanced Detection Techniques

  • Differential Testing: Observe response timing differences
  • Time Delays: Add artificial delays between requests to detect queue interference
  • Obfuscation Testing: Try various obfuscation techniques:
Transfer-Encoding: xchunked
  Transfer-Encoding: chunked
  Transfer-Encoding : chunked
  Transfer-Encoding: chunked
  Transfer-Encoding: identity, chunked
  • HTTP/2 Specific: Duplicate content-length headers, mixed/malformed pseudo-headers, abnormal stream resets, header/continuation frame splitting.

Testing Methodology

flowchart TD
    A[Initial Assessment] --> B{Vulnerability Detected?}
    B -->|Yes| C[Confirmation Testing]
    B -->|No| D[Try Advanced Techniques]
    D --> B
    C --> E{Confirmed?}
    E -->|Yes| F[Targeted Testing]
    E -->|No| D
    F --> G[Documentation & Exploitation]

    subgraph "Initial Assessment"
        A1[Test CL.TE Payloads]
        A2[Test TE.CL Payloads]
        A3[Check Header Obfuscation]
    end

    subgraph "Confirmation Testing"
        C1[Send Request with Clear Response]
        C2[Test Queue Poisoning]
        C3[Check Status Code Anomalies]
    end

    subgraph "Targeted Testing"
        F1[Test HTTP/2 Downgrade]
        F2[Check Header Oversizing]
        F3[Test Method Handling]
    end
  1. Initial Assessment:
  • Test standard CL.TE and TE.CL payloads
  • Try header obfuscation techniques
  • Check for timing inconsistencies
  1. Confirmation Testing:
  • Send a smuggled request that should trigger a distinct response
  • Test for request queue poisoning by affecting subsequent requests
  • Look for response status code anomalies
  1. Targeted Testing:
  • Test HTTP/2 downgrade scenarios
  • Check for header oversizing vulnerabilities
  • Test method-specific handling differences

Vulnerabilities

Common HTTP Request Smuggling Scenarios

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