mirror of
https://github.com/CyberSecurityUP/NeuroSploit.git
synced 2026-09-29 12:31:43 +02:00
CyberSecurityUPandClaude Opus 5
093c87fbc6
Two gaps this closes, both found by reading what the code actually did.
Scope was never enforced
------------------------
`out_of_scope` was rendered into the prompt as "HARD CONSTRAINT — do NOT test…"
and nothing checked it. That is a request to a model, not a control: an agent
that decided a discovered subdomain was interesting, or that followed a
redirect off-target, was free to act and the operator found out by reading the
report.
scope.rs adds a guard in code:
- Hard scope: allowlist of hosts, *.wildcards, IPv4 CIDRs, URL prefixes, with
exclusions that always win. Defaults to the engagement's own target, so
discovery cannot widen authorization — finding a host is not permission to
attack it. An unconfigured policy is closed, not open.
- Soft scope: observe-only zones, destructive verbs (off by default), an
account-creation cap, a rate guard that warns rather than silently dropping
requests (a dropped request reads as "target unreachable"), and payload
classes refused even in scope because they damage the target instead of
demonstrating a bug.
- Enforced at the harness's own chokepoint (probe) and as a post-run audit:
findings proven against an unauthorized host are withheld from the report and
written to out-of-scope-findings.json as an incident to disclose, because
shipping one would launder the mistake.
- REPL: /inscope, /observe, /guardrail, /policy; /scope-out now promotes
host-shaped entries into enforced rules immediately, and says plainly when an
entry is prose the guard cannot enforce.
Validation was models checking models
-------------------------------------
N-model voting plus an adversarial refute pass share the failure mode of the
thing they check — agreement is not evidence, and a confident hallucination
survives a vote by being confident. grounding.rs helps but matches keywords
("http/", "status", "alert(") and cannot tell a real response from a plausible
transcript of one.
validation.rs asks a different question — does the recorded evidence
demonstrate THIS class? — with per-CWE rules and no model in the loop:
SQLi baseline/attack difference that reproduces >= 2x
XSS a browser executed a harness-chosen marker; reflection is not proof
IDOR identity B reads A's resource AND the body matches (a 200 returning a
login page is rejected, which is the classic false positive)
SSRF controlled callback or canary retrieval
LFI controlled marker or a file signature the baseline lacked
RCE a unique nonce in output/callback; reflected input is rejected
Absent evidence is never a pass, and a class with no rule is never
auto-confirmed. NEUROSPLOIT_VALIDATION=advisory (default) rejects
contradictions without demoting voted findings for missing artifacts;
enforcing makes the verdict the status. The evidence contract is injected into
exploit prompts so agents collect the artifacts while they still hold the
target.
Finding gains evidence_data so agents can emit structured artifacts alongside
the finding JSON.
Two bugs the tests caught while writing this: the scope guard treated a SAST
`src/auth.rs:42` endpoint as a host and quarantined valid source findings, and
two canaries minted in the same clock tick came out identical — a marker that
repeats would let a stale token vouch for a new finding.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>