agentleFS
mahumadadmahumadad/quarry/skills/core/oob-interactions/SKILL.md

oob-interactions

Skill1 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub

Confirm blind vulnerabilities with out-of-band interaction tracking. Use whenever a payload's effect is NOT visible in the HTTP response: blind SSRF, stored/blind XSS, blind XXE, blind RCE/command injection, blind SQLi (DNS exfil), deserialization callbacks, log poisoning with async trigger. Manages unique correlation tokens via engine/oast.py so a callback is evidence-grade (Demonstrated), not background noise. Keywords: OAST, OOB, out-of-band, interactsh, Burp Collaborator, callback, blind, DNS exfiltration, correlation token, listener. Do NOT use for vulnerabilities whose effect is directly visible in the response.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    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
  1. Very specific:

    Never reuse tokens across endpoints or vuln classes — correlation is the entire evidentiary value.

    line 53

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Purpose

The plugin's anti-fabrication rules forbid reporting "could allow X". For blind vulnerability classes, the ONLY way to reach Demonstrated is a received, correlated callback. This skill is the discipline; engine/oast.py is the machinery. Without OOB confirmation, blind findings cap at Inferred.

When this skill is MANDATORY

  • Blind SSRF — server fetches but response is not reflected (image re-encoding, webhook fire-and-forget, queued jobs).
  • Stored XSS — payload lands in an admin panel / support inbox / log viewer you cannot see.
  • Blind XXE — parser resolves entities but returns no content.
  • Blind RCE — command runs but output is not returned (use curl/nslookup to your listener as the proof command).
  • Blind/time-based SQLi escalation — DNS exfil (LOAD_FILE, xp_dirtree, UTL_HTTP) to prove actual execution instead of relying on timing alone.
  • Deserialization — gadget chains that phone home instead of returning output.

Methodology

  1. Get a callback host BEFORE injecting. In order of preference:
    • interactsh-client (self-hosted for client-confidential engagements — public oast.* servers are shared infrastructure, treat as disclosure).
    • Burp Collaborator (if Burp MCP is connected).
    • Own listener: VPS with python3 -m http.server + access log, or dnsmasq/authoritative DNS logging for DNS-only vectors. Record which backend in the engagement notes — it goes in the finding evidence.
  2. Mint one token per injection attempt via OASTManager.new_token(). Never reuse tokens across endpoints or vuln classes — correlation is the entire evidentiary value. Token goes as subdomain (http://{token}.host/) so DNS-only and full-HTTP callbacks both correlate.
  3. Inject, then poll with class-appropriate patience:
    • Reflected/immediate vectors: wait 30s.
    • Stored vectors (XSS in support panel, webhook queues, cron-triggered fetchers): re-check at 10 min, and once more before writing the final report — late callbacks are common and must not be reported as gaps prematurely, nor as findings before they arrive.
  4. Correlate strictly. record_interaction() only matches tokens this engagement minted. Public OAST servers receive constant internet background noise — an unmatched hit is NEVER evidence.
  5. Promote to evidence. evidence_record(token) produces the evidence block (injected-at timestamp, callback timestamps, remote address, raw request). Attach it to the finding via FindingsStore.add_evidence() and tag Demonstrated. Record capture in the custody log.

Correlation quality tiers (for the finding's evidence note)

TierSignalWeight
1HTTP request received with unique token + expected remote_addr belonging to target infraFull proof
2HTTP request with unique token, source IP is a known egress proxy/NAT of targetFull proof (note the proxy)
3DNS lookup only, unique tokenStrong — but confirm the app actually fetched (some validators resolve-only; see ssrf gotchas)
4Interaction without token matchBackground noise — discard

Gotchas

  • DNS-only ≠ fetch. Tier 3 alone is not enough for classes where a blocklist check resolves the hostname without issuing the request — pair with a second vector or downgrade to Inferred.
  • Egress proxies: callbacks often arrive from corporate egress IPs, not the app server. Verify the source belongs to target infrastructure (their ASN, their cloud range) and document it.
  • WAFs may fetch your URL themselves (link scanners, email gateways pre-fetching URLs). A hit seconds after submission from a security-vendor IP range is the WAF, not the app — check remote_addr and timing.
  • Never put client-identifying data in token URLs — the URL may end up in target logs and (on public OAST servers) third-party infrastructure.
  • Self-host for confidential engagements. Public interactsh servers can see your callbacks; for clients under NDA with data-residency requirements, self-host interactsh or use your own VPS listener.

Chain Anchors

  1. Callback received → was it HTTP or only DNS? Escalate DNS-only to HTTP proof.
  2. HTTP callback → does the raw request reveal internal headers/tokens the server attaches (internal API keys, Authorization on webhooks)? That is an info-disclosure finding in its own right.
  3. Confirmed blind primitive → retry with an internal target URL (SSRF→IMDS), a cookie-stealing payload (XSS→session theft), or a data-exfil DNS encoding (SQLi→data out) per the relevant hunt skill's chain anchors.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.