windows-boundaries
Skill2 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 106
No access to user's files (except broker-mediated)
- Distinctive: line 107
No network access without explicit capability
- Distinctive: line 108
No registry access outside own hive
- Distinctive: line 109
No inter-process communication without broker
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
name: windows-boundaries description: Windows security boundary attacks — kernel/user boundary, sandbox escape, AppContainer/LPAC bypass, COM/RPC boundary, integrity levels, PPL exploitation metadata: type: offensive phase: exploitation
Windows Security Boundaries
When to Activate
- Planning privilege escalation paths through security boundaries - Sandbox escape research (browser, Office, AppContainer) - Understanding Windows security architecture for exploitation - Kernel/user boundary crossing
Security Boundary Taxonomy
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ VTL1 (Secure World) │
│ Credential Guard, HVCI, Secure Kernel │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ VTL0 (Normal World) │
│ ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Kernel Mode (Ring 0) │ │
│ │ ntoskrnl, win32k, drivers │ │
│ ├───────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │
│ │ User Mode (Ring 3) │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ High Integrity (Admin) │ │ │
│ │ │ ┌───────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ Medium Integrity (Standard User) │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ Low Integrity │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ ┌───────────────────────┐ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ AppContainer/LPAC │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ (Untrusted) │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ └───────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ └───────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ └───────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Kernel/User Boundary
Attack Surface
- System calls (ntoskrnl, win32k) - IOCTLs to kernel drivers - Shared memory sections - GDI/DirectX objects
Exploitation Vectors
// win32k.sys — historically most exploited Windows kernel component
// Attack: trigger vulnerability via GDI/USER syscalls from user mode
// Common bug classes: UAF in window objects, integer overflow in font parsing
// Driver IOCTLs — third-party drivers often vulnerable
// Attack: send crafted IOCTL to driver device object
HANDLE hDevice = CreateFileA("\\\\.\\VulnDriver", GENERIC_READ|GENERIC_WRITE, 0, NULL, OPEN_EXISTING, 0, NULL);
DeviceIoControl(hDevice, IOCTL_CODE, inputBuf, inputSize, outputBuf, outputSize, &bytesReturned, NULL);
// BYOVD (Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver)
// Load known-vulnerable signed driver, exploit it for kernel R/W
// Popular targets: RTCore64.sys, dbutil_2_3.sys, ene.sys, gdrv.sysKernel Exploitation Primitives
1. Arbitrary Read → leak kernel addresses (bypass KASLR)
2. Arbitrary Write → overwrite token privileges, disable PPL
3. Common targets:
- EPROCESS.Token → steal SYSTEM token
- EPROCESS.Protection → disable PPL
- PreviousMode → set to KernelMode for unrestricted syscallsIntegrity Level Boundaries
Levels
| Level | Value | Examples |
| System | 0x4000 | SYSTEM services |
| High | 0x3000 | Elevated admin processes |
| Medium | 0x2000 | Standard user processes |
| Low | 0x1000 | Protected Mode IE, some sandboxes |
| Untrusted | 0x0000 | AppContainer processes |
Crossing Boundaries
# Check integrity level
whoami /groups | findstr "Mandatory"
# Medium → High: UAC bypass (see privesc-windows skill)
# Low → Medium: exploit vulnerability in medium-integrity process
# AppContainer → Low: sandbox escapeAppContainer / LPAC Sandbox
What's Restricted
- No access to user's files (except broker-mediated) - No network access without explicit capability - No registry access outside own hive - No inter-process communication without broker - LPAC (Less Privileged AppContainer): even more restricted — no access to named objects
Escape Vectors
1. Broker vulnerabilities — the broker process mediates access
- File picker broker (allows file access)
- Print broker
- Clipboard broker
2. Kernel vulnerabilities — AppContainer is userland enforcement
- win32k syscalls still accessible (reduced but not eliminated)
- Kernel bug = full escape
3. COM object abuse — some COM servers run at higher integrity
- Find COM objects accessible from AppContainer
- Exploit logic bugs in COM server
4. Named pipe/ALPC — if broker exposes pipe without proper ACL
5. Capability abuse — overly permissive capabilities granted
- internetClient, privateNetworkClientServer
- documentsLibrary, picturesLibraryBrowser Sandbox Escape (Chromium/Edge)
Renderer (AppContainer/Untrusted) → Browser Process (Medium)
Attack surface:
- Mojo IPC interface bugs
- Shared memory corruption
- GPU process as intermediate target
- PDF/extension process boundaries
Typical chain:
1. Renderer RCE (V8 bug, type confusion)
2. Sandbox escape (Mojo IPC bug, win32k bug)
3. Privilege escalation (kernel bug or UAC bypass)COM/RPC Boundaries
COM Elevation
// COM objects that auto-elevate (no UAC prompt):
// CMSTPLUA: {3E5FC7F9-9A51-4367-9063-A120244FBEC7}
// ICMLuaUtil interface — can launch elevated processes
// Exploit: instantiate elevated COM object, call methods
CoInitialize(NULL);
IID iid_ICMLuaUtil = {0x6EDD6D74, 0xC007, 0x4E75, {0xB7, 0x6A, 0xE5, 0x74, 0x09, 0x95, 0xE2, 0x4C}};
CLSID clsid_CMSTPLUA = {0x3E5FC7F9, 0x9A51, 0x4367, {0x90, 0x63, 0xA1, 0x20, 0x24, 0x4F, 0xBE, 0xC7}};
// CoCreateInstance with CLSCTX_LOCAL_SERVER → runs elevatedRPC Attack Surface
# Enumerate RPC interfaces
rpcdump.py target_ip
# Or: RpcView tool for local enumeration
# Common targets:
# - Print Spooler RPC (PrintNightmare)
# - Task Scheduler RPC
# - EFSRPC (PetitPotam)
# - MS-DRSR (DCSync)Hyper-V / VBS Boundary
VTL0 → VTL1 (Secure World)
- VTL1 runs Secure Kernel, Credential Guard, HVCI
- VTL0 cannot read/write VTL1 memory
- Escape requires: Hyper-V vulnerability (extremely rare, high bounty)
- Attack surface: hypercalls, synthetic interrupts, VMBUSVM Escape (Guest → Host)
- Hyper-V attack surface: VMBus, synthetic devices, RemoteFX
- VMware: SVGA, HGFS, backdoor interface
- VirtualBox: 3D acceleration, shared folders, guest additions
- QEMU/KVM: virtio devices, SPICE, USB passthroughPractical Boundary Crossing Chains
Browser → SYSTEM
1. V8 type confusion → renderer RCE (Untrusted integrity)
2. Mojo IPC bug → sandbox escape to browser process (Medium)
3. BYOVD or kernel bug → SYSTEMOffice Macro → Domain Admin
1. VBA macro execution (Medium integrity)
2. AMSI bypass + download Stage 1
3. Credential harvesting or Kerberoast
4. Lateral movement → Domain Controller
5. DCSync → Domain AdminPhishing → Kernel
1. HTML smuggling → ISO → DLL sideload (Medium)
2. UAC bypass → High integrity
3. Load vulnerable driver (BYOVD)
4. Kernel R/W primitive → disable PPL, steal SYSTEM tokenOther versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude★ 401same name
- TaiMaBenJi/taima-skills★ 1same name
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 repository31 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- active-directory-attackSkill
- advanced-redteamSkill
- ai-securitySkill
- cloud-securitySkill
- coding-masterySkill
- crypto-analysisSkill
- edr-evasionSkill
- exploit-developmentSkill
- hacksmarter-labsSkill
- htbSkill
- incident-responseSkill
- initial-accessSkill
- keylogger-archSkill
- malware-analysisSkill
- mobile-pentestSkill
- netexecSkill
- network-attackSkill
- pentesterSkill
- privesc-linuxSkill
- privesc-windowsSkill
- recon-osintSkill
- red-team-opsSkill
- reverse-engineeringSkill
- shellcode-devSkill
- sliver-c2Skill
- socks-pivotingSkill
- threat-huntingSkill
- vulnerability-analysisSkill
- web-pentestSkill
- windows-mitigationsSkill
Does 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.

