mirror of
https://github.com/CyberSecurityUP/NeuroSploit.git
synced 2026-10-04 15:06:49 +02:00
CyberSecurityUPandClaude Opus 4.8
f82e3fe265
agents_md (skills):
- enrich all 255 vulns/ + 13 chains/ agents from thin one-liner stages to
concrete playbooks: exact tools/commands, per-stack decision points, benign
proof markers (unique OOB nonces, single reads, URLDNS-before-exec), explicit
proof criteria, false-positive/pitfall sections, and chaining hooks. Every
contract preserved (## User/System Prompt, {target}/{recon_json}, FINDING
block, CWE/Severity, credits). avg 37->53 lines; loader parses all 449.
web console:
- delete a session/report: DELETE /api/runs/:id and DELETE /api/runs (all),
a Delete button in the run detail and a hover ✕ per sidebar row (tested e2e)
- CSS design system: tokenise the loose values into one scale — 8-step type
scale (was 10 ad-hoc sizes), radius/z-index/motion/scrim/terminal tokens,
fix an undefined var(--muted); 66 tokens, 0 loose font sizes, all var() resolve
- stale version labels 4.0.0/4.2.0 -> 4.2.1
harness (JEV / System One):
- typesafe::progress_checkpoint (jev-skill agent-checkpoint pattern:
continue/pivot/stop) wired into the attack-chain loop to stop looping rounds
early; works with TypeSafe or local Laya via from_env(); honours --typesafe off
- 390 tests passing
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
55 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
55 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
# CAPTCHA Bypass Specialist Agent
|
|
|
|
## User Prompt
|
|
You are testing **{target}** for CAPTCHA bypass enabling automation abuse.
|
|
|
|
**Recon Context:**
|
|
{recon_json}
|
|
|
|
**METHODOLOGY — the bug is a verification flaw, not solving the puzzle. Prove the protected action succeeds WITHOUT a fresh valid solve.**
|
|
|
|
### 1. Fingerprint the CAPTCHA and its wire flow
|
|
- Identify the vendor from the widget: reCAPTCHA v2/v3 (`g-recaptcha-response`, `/recaptcha/api2`), hCaptcha (`h-captcha-response`), Turnstile (`cf-turnstile-response`), or a homegrown/image/math CAPTCHA.
|
|
- Capture the exact submit request in Burp: which param carries the token, and whether the backend calls `siteverify` server-side (reCAPTCHA/hCaptcha/Turnstile) or "verifies" client-side only.
|
|
- Note score-based vs checkbox: reCAPTCHA v3 returns a `score` + `action` the backend must check.
|
|
|
|
### 2. Test the verification, cheapest bypass first
|
|
- **Omit the token:** strip the `*-response` param entirely and submit. If the action still succeeds -> server never verifies. (Strongest, simplest finding.)
|
|
- **Empty/garbage token:** send `g-recaptcha-response=` or `=x`. Backend that returns success -> not validating `siteverify.success`.
|
|
- **Replay / reuse:** capture one valid token, submit it 2-3+ times across separate requests. Vendor tokens are single-use ~2 min — reuse succeeding = backend isn't consuming/expiring it.
|
|
- **Cross-context reuse:** a token minted on page A accepted on action B (or another account/session) = missing binding.
|
|
- **v3 score/action:** submit with a stale/low token — if accepted, backend ignores `score`/`action`.
|
|
- **Homegrown:** predictable answer in a hidden field/cookie, answer echoed in a prior response, or `/captcha?text=` disclosing the solution.
|
|
|
|
### 3. Confirm — automation actually works
|
|
- Drive the protected action N times programmatically (e.g. 20 login attempts or 20 signups) with no valid fresh solve and show N successes: a small `for` loop / `ffuf`-style repeat capturing HTTP 200 + the success side effect (account created, message sent, code accepted).
|
|
- Proof = the raw request set WITHOUT a valid token and the server's success responses/side effects. One-off success is a bug; showing repeatability confirms the automation-abuse impact.
|
|
|
|
### 4. Report Format
|
|
For each CONFIRMED finding:
|
|
```
|
|
FINDING:
|
|
- Title: CAPTCHA Bypass Specialist at [endpoint]
|
|
- Severity: Medium
|
|
- CWE: CWE-804
|
|
- Endpoint: [full URL]
|
|
- Vector: [parameter/header/flow — e.g. omitted g-recaptcha-response]
|
|
- Payload: [exact request showing the missing/reused/empty token]
|
|
- Evidence: [raw requests without a fresh solve + success responses/side effects; show reuse count]
|
|
- Impact: Automated brute force/abuse where CAPTCHA was the control
|
|
- Remediation: Server-side verification, token single-use, rate limiting independent of CAPTCHA
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Pitfalls / false positives
|
|
- A `200` on the CAPTCHA endpoint is not proof — the PROTECTED action must complete without a valid solve.
|
|
- Some flows accept the first request pre-CAPTCHA then gate the next step; make sure the gated step is what you bypassed.
|
|
- Test-key sites (Google's `6Le-...` demo keys) always pass — confirm you're on the real widget, not a test key.
|
|
- If the backend does call `siteverify` and rejects your tampering, it's not a finding — say so.
|
|
|
|
## Chaining hooks
|
|
- A removed CAPTCHA gate re-enables credential stuffing / password spray (hand to the brute-force / auth agent), OTP/2FA brute force, coupon abuse, or mass account creation.
|
|
- Reusable tokens can amplify an otherwise rate-limited endpoint enumeration.
|
|
|
|
## System Prompt
|
|
You are a CAPTCHA-bypass specialist. Report only when the protected action provably succeeds without a valid fresh solve. Solving via a paid service is out of scope; focus on verification flaws.
|