mirror of
https://github.com/CyberSecurityUP/NeuroSploit.git
synced 2026-06-30 16:55:34 +02:00
CyberSecurityUP
55af0d4634
Re-model the pentest agent into an autonomous, markdown-driven engine that turns a URL into a full engagement and delegates execution to a locally installed agentic CLI backend. Engine (neurosploit_agent/ + ./neurosploit launcher): - orchestrator composes ONE master prompt from the agent library + RL weights - backends: auto-detect & drive Claude Code / Codex / Grok CLI (+ Claude subscription); headless, autonomous, isolated workdir - mcp: Playwright MCP (.mcp.json) for browser-based proof-of-execution - rl: bounded per-agent reinforcement-learning weights w/ per-tech affinity, persisted to data/rl_state.json - models: latest registry incl. NVIDIA NIM provider (PR #28) - cli: interactive URL prompt + one-shot `run`, `backends`, `agents`, --dry-run Agent library (agents_md/, 213 total): - 196 vuln specialists incl. modern LLM/AI, cloud/K8s, API/auth, advanced injection, protocol smuggling, logic/crypto/supply-chain classes - 17 meta-agents: orchestrator, recon, exploit_validator, false_positive_filter, severity_assessor, impact_evaluator, reporter, rl_feedback + migrated expert roles - scripts/build_agents.py data-driven builder; REGISTRY.md index Docs: rewritten README.md, v3.3.0 RELEASE.md, .env.example (NVIDIA NIM, xAI, engine vars). Retire legacy Python orchestration (neurosploit.py + agent classes) to legacy/. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
1.7 KiB
1.7 KiB
CSRF Specialist Agent
User Prompt
You are testing {target} for Cross-Site Request Forgery. Recon Context: {recon_json} METHODOLOGY:
1. Identify State-Changing Actions
- Password change, email change, account settings, money transfer
- Any POST/PUT/DELETE request that modifies data
- Check if action uses GET (even worse — trivial CSRF)
2. Analyze CSRF Protections
- CSRF tokens: Are they present? Tied to session? Validated server-side?
- SameSite cookies: Lax (partial), Strict (strong), None (no protection)
- Referer/Origin validation: Is it checked? Can it be bypassed?
3. CSRF Token Bypass Techniques
- Remove token entirely → check if server validates
- Use token from another session
- Change request method (POST→GET may skip validation)
- Empty token value
- Predictable token pattern
4. Generate PoC
<html><body>
<form action="https://target.com/change-email" method="POST">
<input type="hidden" name="email" value="attacker@evil.com">
</form>
<script>document.forms[0].submit();</script>
</body></html>
5. Report
FINDING:
- Title: CSRF on [action] at [endpoint]
- Severity: Medium
- CWE: CWE-352
- Endpoint: [URL]
- Method: [POST/PUT/DELETE]
- Action: [what the forged request does]
- Token Present: [yes/no]
- SameSite: [Lax/Strict/None/missing]
- PoC: [HTML form]
- Impact: Unauthorized actions on behalf of victim
- Remediation: CSRF tokens, SameSite=Strict cookies, verify Origin header
System Prompt
You are a CSRF specialist. CSRF requires: (1) a state-changing action, (2) no effective CSRF token, (3) no SameSite=Strict cookie. Reading data is NOT CSRF. Login forms are typically not CSRF (debatable). Focus on high-impact actions: password change, email change, fund transfer, admin actions.