Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

hunt-clickjacking

Investigate clickjacking, where a hidden page tricks users into unintended clicks. Check protective headers, then verify in a real browser whether the embedded page retains authentication and allows sensitive actions.

OriginalShow the original description

Hunt Clickjacking — missing X-Frame-Options / CSP frame-ancestors lets an attacker embed the target page in an invisible iframe and trick victims into clicking buttons they cannot see (UI redressing). Targets: login flows, money transfers, account settings, OAuth confirmation pages. Confirm by fetching the page, then PROVE it frames in a real browser and a sensitive state-changing action survives the cross-site context (SameSite cookies / framebusting JS can defeat it) — header-absence alone is not a finding.

See how to install

Good for

  • Reviewing payment and account settings pages
  • Testing OAuth authorization screens
  • Checking pages with missing frame protection
  • Preparing browser evidence for vulnerability reports

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md4.1 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

What is Clickjacking

Clickjacking (UI Redressing) lets an attacker load a target page inside a transparent iframe on a malicious site. The victim sees the attacker's decoy UI but clicks the hidden target UI beneath it. No JavaScript on the target is required.

Highest-value targets:

  • Login / authentication pages — force login with attacker credentials
  • Money transfer / checkout / "confirm payment" buttons
  • Account settings (email change, password change, 2FA disable)
  • OAuth / social-login "Authorize app" confirmation dialogs
  • Admin actions (delete, promote user, change role)

Protection Headers

Two mechanisms prevent framing:

X-Frame-Options: DENY              # strongest — blocks all framing
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN        # allows same-origin frames only
Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors 'none'     # CSP equivalent of DENY
Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors 'self'     # CSP equivalent of SAMEORIGIN

If NEITHER is present, the page is frameable from any origin.

How to Test

Header-absence is the trigger for investigation, not the finding. Two steps:

Step 1 — Header check (screening). Fetch the target page and inspect the response headers:

curl -sI https://target.example/account/transfer | grep -iE 'x-frame-options|content-security-policy'

If BOTH X-Frame-Options and CSP frame-ancestors are absent, the page is a candidate. If either is present and restrictive (DENY/SAMEORIGIN/frame-ancestors 'none'|'self'), stop — it's protected.

Step 2 — Prove it actually frames and clicks (required for a real finding). Build a minimal PoC and load it in a real browser:

<!doctype html>
<h1>Win a prize — click below</h1>
<iframe src="https://target.example/account/transfer"
        style="opacity:0.1;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:1000px;height:800px"></iframe>

Confirm ALL of the following, or it is not exploitable:

  • The page actually renders inside the iframe (no framebusting JS that blanks/redirects it — e.g. if(top!==self) breakout, or a Sec-Fetch-Dest/JS frame check).
  • The sensitive action still works while framed — critically, the action must succeed cross-site. If it relies on a session cookie set SameSite=Lax or SameSite=Strict (the modern default), the cookie is not sent on the cross-site framed request, and the clickjack fails. Verify the victim's authenticated state carries into the frame.
  • The target is a state-changing action (transfer, settings/email/password change, 2FA disable, OAuth authorize, admin action), not a read-only page.

Strategy: target the most sensitive action pages first — severity scales directly with what the victim is tricked into doing.

False Positives

  • Public, read-only pages (home/marketing) lacking frame protection are low/informational — no sensitive action to redress.
  • APIs and non-HTML endpoints (JSON, images) are not clickjacking targets.
  • Header-absence alone is NOT a finding. SameSite cookies, framebusting JS, or the lack of any sensitive framed action can each fully defeat it — which is why Step 2 is mandatory.

Proof Requirements

A valid clickjacking report shows: (1) the target page rendered inside an attacker-controlled iframe in a real browser, (2) a sensitive state-changing action reachable by a framed click while the victim is authenticated (cookies survive the cross-site context), and (3) a screenshot/recording of the overlay. Reporting missing headers with no working frame PoC is a documentation-quality issue, not a vulnerability.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Inspect Android apps for embedded credentials, internal API addresses, and components exposed to other apps. The skill guides APK acquisition, code inspection, and runtime traffic analysis to support a mobile security assessment.

  • Inventory Android apps included in a security assessment
  • Check APKs for embedded credentials and internal API addresses
  • Review components that other apps can invoke
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

bb-local-toolkit

FreeSummary

Guide bug bounty work from asset discovery to validation and reporting, while resolving local locations of security tools, wordlists, and cloned projects. It covers web and AI security testing with an emphasis on demonstrated impact.

  • Locate installed security tools and wordlists
  • Plan reconnaissance within a program's scope
  • Investigate related weaknesses and their combined impact
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

bb-methodology

FreeSummary

Organize a bug bounty investigation from reconnaissance through reporting. The skill helps choose a focused objective, identify the current phase, select relevant techniques and tools, and distinguish reproducible security impact from misleading test results.

  • Setting objectives at the start of an investigation
  • Choosing the next step when testing stalls
  • Replanning after switching targets
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

bug-bounty

FreeSummary

Guide bug bounty work from checking authorized scope and discovering assets to testing web and AI features. Validate practical impact, investigate related weaknesses, and organize reproducible evidence into a vulnerability report.

  • Planning research for a new bug bounty target
  • Reviewing source code for security weaknesses
  • Testing chatbot and AI feature security
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

Prepare Bugcrowd submissions with accurate vulnerability categories, evidence-based severity requests, and explanations of program scope. Structure references between related reports, document QA testing conditions, and draft responses when a finding is downgraded or considered out of scope.

  • Choose a suitable Bugcrowd vulnerability category
  • Explain a severity request using demonstrated impact
  • Respond to out-of-scope decisions
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

cloud-iam-deep

FreeSummary

Assess what discovered cloud credentials allow across AWS, Azure, GCP, and Kubernetes. The skill guides identity checks, permission review, and paths to higher privileges, then helps document impact, activity, and cleanup within the engagement's agreed scope.

  • Assess permissions granted by discovered cloud credentials
  • Review role trust and access across cloud accounts
  • Check permissions assigned to anonymous Cognito identities
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

See all skills by elementalsouls

Report a problem with this skill