hunt-misc

⚠️ AUTHORIZED USE ONLY This skill is for educational purposes or authorized security assessments only. You must have explicit, written permission from the system owner before using this tool. Misuse of this tool is illegal and strictly prohibited.

Mandatory confirmation gate Before running any command that probes, exploits, changes, persists on, extracts data from, or attempts credential access against a target:

1. Ask the user to state the exact target URL, IP, account, or resource.
2. Ask the user to confirm written authorization and the permitted scope.
3. Show the exact command(s) and explain their expected effect.
4. Wait for explicit confirmation in the current conversation.

Without that confirmation, remain read-only and provide defensive guidance only. Prefer a sandbox, disposable VM, or controlled lab.

Crown Jewel Targets

Why this vuln class pays: MISC vulnerabilities span access control failures, information disclosure, session/auth logic bugs, and misconfiguration — the categories that consistently produce the highest payouts because they map directly to business impact: data exposure, account takeover, privilege escalation, and infrastructure compromise.

Highest-value targets:

• SaaS platforms with role hierarchies (Shopify, GitHub, GitLab) — any boundary between owner/admin/staff/guest is a privilege escalation surface
• Identity/auth flows — invitation links, password reset, SAML SSO, OAuth token scopes
• Multi-tenant systems — one tenant touching another tenant's data
• Internal APIs — LFS endpoints, pre-receive hooks, internal GraphQL/REST that assume caller is trusted
• Domain/DNS management features — transfer controls, subdomain delegation
• Token/credential management — PAT scopes, deploy keys, API tokens stored in config fields

Asset types that pay most:

• Core product APIs (not marketing subdomains)
• Enterprise/self-hosted editions (GitHub Enterprise, GitLab EE)
• Partner/collaborator invitation systems
• OAuth app integrations and webhook endpoints

Attack Surface Signals

URL patterns to watch:

/admin/*/transfer
/invitations/*
/partners/*/accept
/api/v*/repos/*/lfs/*
/-/settings/integrations/sentry
/api/v*/user/installations
/hooks/pre-receive/*
/reset-password?token=
/auth/saml/callback
/api/v*/packages/pypi/*

Response header signals:

X-Request-Id (pitchfork/Rack — check for header injection)
X-Shopify-Shop-Api-Call-Limit
X-GitLab-*

JS patterns revealing internal surfaces:

// Look for hardcoded internal API paths
fetch('/internal/api/
graphql { installations(
"scope": [], // empty scopes on tokens
"permissions": {"contents": "read"} // minimal scope PATs

Tech stack signals:

• Ruby/Rack middleware (CRLF injection risk in pitchfork)
• SAML SSO enabled on enterprise instances
• PyPI proxy/mirror configurations (dependency confusion)
• Sentry error tracking integration fields (SSRF/token leak vector)
• Multi-role invitation systems (partners, staff, collaborators)

Step-by-Step Hunting Methodology

1. Map all role/permission boundaries — enumerate every role level (owner → admin → staff → guest → removed) and document what each role should see

   Marker Discipline: when probing role boundaries by injecting unique tokens / identifiers into per-role test data, markers MUST be unique random alphanumeric strings (8+ chars, no English words, no protocol keywords). Bad markers: test, marker, attacker, evil, admin, AAAA. Good markers: cpmark987abc, x4hd2k9pq. Before claiming any reflection, search the baseline (no-marker) response for the marker — if it appears naturally, change your marker.

   Body-Diff Rule: a privilege-bypass claim requires response BODY differential, not status-code-only. 200 OK with byte-identical body to baseline is NOT a bypass. Always diff bodies side-by-side before claiming bypass. Status-code-only claims are the most common rejected-as-N/A category on bug-bounty platforms.

2. Test invitation flows end-to-end — accept invitations without completing verification steps; modify invitation tokens; test whether accepting an invitation as a different user grants access

3. Test post-removal access — add a user to a resource, remove them, then test if their session/token still grants access (especially after company/org removal)

…