본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

recon-scope-triage

Review security discovery results to distinguish a target organization’s assets from unrelated assets sharing its name. Check ownership evidence, identify misleading web responses, quarantine uncertain entries, and recalculate severity counts before proceeding with security testing.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Triage ASM/recon output for ownership before testing — separate the target's real assets from namespace-collision noise. Automated recon keyword-matches on the brand name, so for any target whose name is a common/dictionary word, the output is dominated by assets belonging to UNRELATED same-named companies (repos, cloud buckets, mobile apps, breach corpora, typosquats). Built from an authorized engagement where an ASM report's "Criticals" were overwhelmingly false positives and the combo/repos/mobile/bucket lists were polluted with unrelated same-named orgs. Use at the START of any engagement, immediately on receiving any ASM/recon/OSINT dataset, BEFORE testing anything.

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Check asset ownership before security testing
  • Separate unrelated organizations with matching names
  • Validate unusually high critical finding counts
  • Keep an auditable record of quarantined assets

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md7.3 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

When to use this skill

Trigger when:

  • The target brand is a common/dictionary word or shared term (e.g. apex, summit, vertex, nova, core, orbit, pulse, unity…)
  • You receive an ASM report, recon export, breach combo, repo list, bucket list, or mobile-app list to act on
  • A "Critical" count looks implausibly high (hundreds) for the org's size
  • Any asset's ownership is asserted by the tool but not proven

The two failure modes this skill prevents:

  1. Wasting the engagement testing/triaging assets that aren't the target's.
  2. Attacking an innocent third party that merely shares the name — out of scope, and real harm.

Rule: ownership is guilty-until-proven. An asset is the target's only when a concrete ownership signal ties it to the target — never because a scanner's keyword matched.


The collision sources (where keyword-matching lies)

Recon sourceHow it collidesVerify ownership by
GitHub reposSearch matched the brand word in repo name / topic / a stringRepo owner is the org's GH org; commits from org emails; code references the org's real domains/infra. A repo named <word>-backend by a random user = noise.
Cloud buckets (S3/GCS)Bucket names are a global namespace; <word>-static, <word>-data, <word>-public exist for someoneBucket content references the target; bucket name correlates with a confirmed target subdomain (x.target.com ↔ x-public) AND content matches; ACL/owner metadata. Generic content (other-language, other-industry) = not theirs.
Mobile appsStore search matched the brand word in app name / packagePublisher account = the org; package reverse-DNS = an owned domain (com.<owneddomain>.app); dev cert; app calls owned API hosts. Mature ASM tools emit an "apps_accepted=0" / ownership-confidence field — read it.
Breach corpora / combosEmail local-or-domain contains the brand wordExact owned-domain match only (@target.com), not @<word>group.com / @something<word>.com. A different domain that contains the word is a different org.
TyposquatsGenerated permutations of the nameThese are defensive/brand-protection findings, not offensive scope — note and move on.
Stack/forum/paste hitsBrand word in bodyBody references the target's real domain/subdomain/employee/secret. Ownership-confidence < threshold = drop.

Web "Critical" triage — the soft-404 control

Automated .env / .git / actuator / admin-panel "Criticals" are overwhelmingly soft-404s: SPA/framework catch-alls returning HTTP 200 (or 403) for every path. Verify EACH before believing it:

# the "finding"
curl -s -o /tmp/a -w "%{http_code} %{size_download}\n" https://host.target.com/.env
# a junk control on the same host
curl -s -o /tmp/b -w "%{http_code} %{size_download}\n" https://host.target.com/zzz-nonsense-$RANDOM
# identical byte length / body  →  FALSE POSITIVE (catch-all), discard
cmp -s /tmp/a /tmp/b && echo "SOFT-404 false positive" || echo "differs — investigate"

Real exposures have a content-type + signature that differs from the catch-all (.git/config starts [core]; .env has KEY=value; phpinfo has the XHTML-transitional doctype + PHP Version). A physical .php/phpinfo.php that returns a bigger/different body than the junk control is the real-vs-soft-404 tell.


The triage workflow

  1. Confirm the canonical owned-domain set first (the SOW/program domain + its verified subdomains + the verified Entra/Okta/Google tenant brand name). This is your ownership anchor.
  2. For each asset class, apply the verify-by column above. No signal → quarantine, don't test.
  3. Re-baseline the severity counts against only-owned assets. Report the delta — "N Criticals → M after ownership + soft-404 triage" is itself a finding about the ASM program.
  4. Quarantine collisions explicitly (a loot/quarantined_<source>.txt) so it's auditable that you saw them and chose not to target them.
  5. Surface the meta-finding: if the supplied ASM/recon feed is mostly false-positive, that misallocates the owner's remediation budget and buries real risk — write it up (Medium/Strategic).

Anti-patterns

  • Trusting the tool's "owned" label. Tools keyword-match; they don't prove ownership. Verify.
  • Targeting a same-named third party because it was "in the report." Out of scope + real harm. A combo line user@<word>company.com is a different company's employee.
  • Reporting soft-404s as exposures. Always run the junk-path control.
  • Counting typosquats / missing-headers / brand-collision repos as offensive findings. They're defensive/hygiene/noise — they pad the report and erode credibility.
  • Skipping triage "to save time." Untriaged, you spend the whole engagement on other people's assets and find nothing real.

Why this matters (calibration)

For a target whose brand is a common word, expect the bulk of automated "owned" assets to be collisions:

  • Repos that are unrelated open-source projects (ad-block lists, scrapers, student projects, a different company's SDK) merely containing the word.
  • Mobile apps published by entirely different companies that share the name — banks, credit unions, dating apps, dispensaries, home-care services are all real-world collision categories. (Good ASM tooling will tell you it accepted zero as owned.)
  • Cloud buckets in the global namespace holding some unrelated org's content (other-language documents, demo/sample data, another industry's files).
  • Breach combos full of emails from sibling-named-but-different companies (<word>group.com, <region><word>.com).

On a real engagement against a dictionary-word brand, after clearing this noise the only genuinely-owned high-severity finding was discoverable solely by manual tradecraft (a JS-bundle → API discovery, see hunt-spa-api) — it was nowhere in the hundreds of scanner "Criticals." Triage-first is what made the engagement productive instead of a goose chase.


Related Skills & Chains

  • triage-validation — asset-ownership triage (this skill) precedes finding-validity triage (the 7-Question Gate). Ownership first, then validity.
  • redteam-mindset — "aggressive default" means probe every owned live surface; this skill defines which surfaces are owned so persistence isn't wasted on collisions.
  • hunt-spa-api — once an API host passes ownership triage, this is how you test it.
  • offensive-osint / osint-methodology — feed ownership anchors (verified domains, tenant brand, dev accounts) from OSINT into this triage.

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 22일 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 22일 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 22일 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 22일 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 22일 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 22일 업데이트

elementalsouls의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고