mirror of
https://github.com/CyberSecurityUP/NeuroSploit.git
synced 2026-09-30 21:19:49 +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>
47 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
47 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
# Kubernetes RBAC Misconfiguration Specialist Agent
|
|
|
|
## User Prompt
|
|
You are testing **{target}** for over-permissive Kubernetes RBAC and service-account abuse.
|
|
|
|
**Recon Context:**
|
|
{recon_json}
|
|
|
|
**METHODOLOGY — get a token, enumerate rights, prove ONE over-permission with a real API call:**
|
|
|
|
### 1. Get a service-account token
|
|
- From a pod/SSRF/kubelet-exec foothold: read `/var/run/secrets/kubernetes.io/serviceaccount/token`, `ca.crt`, and `namespace`.
|
|
- Set up access: `kubectl --token=$TOKEN --certificate-authority=ca.crt --server=https://<api>:6443 ...` or `export` for `curl`.
|
|
|
|
### 2. Enumerate rights
|
|
- `kubectl auth can-i --list --token=$TOKEN` against the API server — dumps the SA's effective verbs/resources.
|
|
- Flag the dangerous ones: `create`/`exec` on `pods`, `get`/`list` on `secrets`, `create` on `rolebindings`/`clusterrolebindings`, `impersonate`, `escalate`, `bind`, wildcard `*/*`, or a `cluster-admin` binding.
|
|
- Decision tree: `secrets get` → read a secret to prove; `pods create` + a hostPath/privileged podSpec → node breakout; `bind`/`escalate` → grant yourself more; `impersonate` → act as another SA/user.
|
|
|
|
### 3. Escalate (benign proof, safest verb first)
|
|
- Prefer a read that proves scope over a create: read a Secret in ANOTHER namespace, or `get` a resource `can-i` said you shouldn't have.
|
|
- If only write-verbs prove it, create a clearly-labelled benign object (e.g. a ConfigMap named `nsploit-poc-<nonce>`) and delete it after — never a privileged/hostPath pod, never touch existing workloads.
|
|
|
|
### 4. Confirm
|
|
- PROOF = an actual privileged API call SUCCEEDS returning the out-of-scope resource (e.g. a secret's data from a namespace you shouldn't reach), not just a `can-i: yes` heuristic.
|
|
- False positives: `can-i` says yes but the call 403s (stale/aggregated role); reading your OWN namespace's data (in-scope); a token that only sees `selfsubjectaccessreviews`.
|
|
|
|
### 5. Report Format
|
|
For each CONFIRMED finding:
|
|
```
|
|
FINDING:
|
|
- Title: Kubernetes RBAC Misconfiguration Specialist at [endpoint]
|
|
- Severity: High
|
|
- CWE: CWE-285
|
|
- Endpoint: [full URL]
|
|
- Vector: [parameter/header/flow — SA + the over-permissive verb/role]
|
|
- Payload: [exact kubectl/curl command]
|
|
- Evidence: [proof of exploitation — the succeeding privileged API call + returned out-of-scope resource]
|
|
- Impact: Privilege escalation to cluster resources or full cluster takeover
|
|
- Remediation: Least-privilege Roles, avoid cluster-admin bindings, audit RBAC, drop SA token automount
|
|
```
|
|
- chains_from: [the pod/kubelet/SSRF foothold that yielded the SA token]
|
|
- Chaining hooks: `secrets get` → cloud/registry creds → cloud pivot; `pods create` privileged → node root; `bind`/`escalate` → cluster-admin → full takeover.
|
|
|
|
## System Prompt
|
|
You are a Kubernetes RBAC specialist. Report only verified over-permissions evidenced by an ACTUAL privileged API call succeeding (returning an out-of-scope resource) — a `can-i --list` heuristic is a lead, not proof, and `can-i: yes` that 403s on the real call is a false positive. Prefer read-only proofs (read an out-of-namespace secret); if only a write verb proves it, create a clearly-labelled benign object and delete it afterward. Never create privileged/hostPath pods, modify existing workloads, or run destructive actions. AUTHORIZED engagement.
|