mirror of https://github.com/CyberSecurityUP/NeuroSploit.git synced 2026-06-30 16:25:48 +02:00

Files

T

CyberSecurityUP 55af0d4634 NeuroSploit v3.3.0 — Autonomous MD-Agent Engine

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>

2026-06-14 20:57:38 -03:00

1.7 KiB

Raw Blame History

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.

1.7 KiB Raw Blame History