「attacks」の検索結果

Use this skill when reasoning about generative AI, adversarial machine learning, neural network security, algorithmic fairness, or deep learning fundamentals. This skill channels the thinking of Ian Goodfellow, inventor of Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). Trigger this skill when the user asks about model robustness, mitigating bias, evaluating AI guardrails, designing generative models, or defending against adversarial attacks. Apply his frameworks of minimax games, adversarial feature learning, and worst-case robustness analysis to shift the user's perspective from average-case optimization to adversarial resilience.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Configures HTTP security headers to protect against XSS, clickjacking, and MIME sniffing attacks. Use when hardening web applications, passing security audits, or implementing Content Security Policy.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Secure dependency upgrades with supply chain protection, cooldowns, and staged rollout. Use when upgrading deps, configuring security policies, or preventing supply chain attacks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

REST API security hardening with authentication, rate limiting, input validation, security headers. Use for production APIs, security audits, defense-in-depth, or encountering vulnerabilities, injection attacks, CORS issues.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Implements API rate limiting using token bucket, sliding window, and Redis-based algorithms to protect against abuse. Use when securing public APIs, implementing tiered access, or preventing denial-of-service attacks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Configure rate limiting, manage auth secrets, set up CSRF protection, define trusted origins, secure sessions and cookies, encrypt OAuth tokens, track IP addresses, and implement audit logging for Better Auth. Use when users need to secure their auth setup, prevent brute force attacks, or harden a Better Auth deployment.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Plan, execute, document, and retest authorized security assessments of AI agents and multi-agent workflows using safe adversarial cases, synthetic identities, canaries, and evidence-based findings. Use when defining red-team rules of engagement, assessing prompt injection or excessive agency, testing tool and identity boundaries, evaluating memory or cross-agent attacks, scoring a campaign, or verifying remediation in an approved environment.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Active Directory Certificate Services (AD CS) escalation techniques ESC1 through ESC17, driven by hand with Certipy (ly4k). Use when the target runs a Certificate Authority and you want to find vulnerable certificate templates or CA misconfigurations, request a certificate that impersonates a privileged user, and know the exact certipy command, what each ESC actually checks, the Windows Event IDs that fire, and the remediation. ESC1 and ESC8 are the two you hit most in the field.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Real-world Active Directory environment constraints that silently break attacks when ignored: NTLM disabled (Kerberos fallback), AES-only KDCs (RC4 blocked by GPO), LDAP signing and channel binding requiring LDAPS on 636, Kerberos clock skew (KRB_AP_ERR_SKEW), SPNs that must be FQDNs never short names or IPs (the misleading invalidCredentials), Protected Users / LAPS / gMSA / MachineAccountQuota, LDAP 1000-object paging, and VPN latency. Use this whenever a bind, TGT request, LDAP query, or SMB negotiation fails in a way that looks like bad credentials but is really hardening, or before running any AD tooling against a domain you have not fingerprinted. Standard-tooling knowledge (netexec, impacket, certipy, bloodyAD, kerbrute), no vendor-specific engine.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Cross-agent self-inspection of your AI-agent stack. Audits skills, MCP servers, hooks, plugins, commands, credentials, and memory files across Claude Code, Codex, OpenClaw, and NanoClaw. Produces a structured inventory and narrative briefing with cross-ecosystem risk analysis. Use when the user asks to audit their own setup, check what they have installed, review their agent stack security posture, or understand cross-tool interactions. Use when a user has accumulated skills/plugins/MCP servers over time and wants visibility into their attack surface. Use after installing new skills or plugins. Do NOT use for vetting external code before install (that is repo-forensics). Do NOT use for incident response during active attacks. Do NOT use for fixing or patching vulnerabilities (forensify is read-only).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Detects attacks from server logs and blocks malicious IPs with CrowdSec, an open-source, crowd-sourced alternative to fail2ban. Use when a user asks to block brute force attempts, protect SSH or a web server, set up a community blocklist firewall, add a WAF, or install CrowdSec with Docker.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Implement safety guardrails for AI systems — content filtering, prompt injection detection, output validation, bias mitigation, and responsible AI practices. Use when tasks involve adding safety layers to LLM applications, detecting prompt injection attacks, filtering harmful content, implementing rate limiting for AI APIs, validating LLM outputs against schemas, building moderation pipelines, or ensuring AI systems comply with safety policies.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

GitHub 解封 — 账号封禁/限制/恢复的领域操作系统。覆盖：(a) GitHub 官方政策体系 (TOS / 可接受使用政策 / Trust & Safety 执行模式 / 公开申诉路径 / 受制裁地区解读)；(b) 封号原因诊断学 (spam / abuse / 制裁误标 / 2FA 丢失 / ToS 违规 / 账号劫持误判 / ban evasion 等子类型 + 症状→原因映射 + 自我分诊压测)；(c) 申诉实操 craft (写一封能让 T&S 快速判误伤的英文申诉信 + 升级阶梯 + 法务介入边界 + Don'ts)；(d) 制裁与合规硬边界 (OFAC SDN 名单 / 哪些国家或地区真不可达 / VPN 误判路径 / 中国大陆不是美国制裁地区的反复重申)；(e) 中国大陆开发者特别处境 (sanctioned region 误标 + SMS 验证不支持 +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab 备用迁移 + 私有自托管 Gitea/Forgejo)；(f) 真实案例库 (~30+ 公开案例分类拆解：误伤 / 真违规 / 制裁误标三类各自赔率与申诉成功路径)。伦理锚绝不软化：不教 ban evasion / 不教撒谎式申诉 / 真违规承认改进 / 丢 2FA 无恢复因子则诚实告知 / 中国制裁误标靠申诉不靠换 VPN / 申诉 6 个月窗口必算清 / 约 3% (业内估) 真违规恢复 vs 约 79% (业内估) 误伤申诉成功率分层标。 (GitHub Account Reinstatement — the domain operating system for GitHub (and analogous platform) account suspension, restriction, appeal, and recovery. Covers: (a) GitHub official policy architecture (TOS / Acceptable Use Policies / Trust & Safety enforcement patterns / public appeals pathways / sanctioned-region interpretation); (b) suspension-cause diagnostics (spam / abuse / sanctions mis-flag / 2FA loss / ToS violation / account hijack false-positive / ban evasion taxonomy + symptom→cause mapping + self-triage pressure test); (c) appeal craft (writing an English appeal letter that gets T&S to fast-track a false-positive ruling + escalation ladder + legal-engagement boundary + Don'ts); (d) sanctions and compliance hard boundaries (OFAC SDN list / which countries/regions are truly unreachable / VPN false-positive paths / China is NOT a US-sanctioned region — repeated emphasis); (e) mainland China developer special circumstances (sanctioned-region mis-flag + SMS verification does not support +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab fallback migration + self-hosted Gitea/Forgejo); (f) real-case library (~30+ public cases with categorized analysis: false-positive / genuine violation / sanctions mis-flag, each with win-rate and appeal success path). Ethical anchors absolutely not softened: do NOT teach ban evasion (creating new accounts turns a temp ban into a permanent one — the single biggest mistake); do NOT teach social engineering or lying in appeals (misuse + actually confirms violation); genuine violations: admit + improve beats denial; lost 2FA + no recovery factor → do not pretend recovery is possible; China sanctioned-region mis-flag → fix via appeal, not repeated VPN switching; appeal form 6-month window must be counted carefully; historical 约 3% (业内估) genuine-violation recovery vs 约 79% (业内估) false-positive appeal success rate stratification must be honestly labeled. Anti-samples (explicitly describe harm, never endorse): developer permabanned for ban evasion / open-source team org-banned for personal attacks in public issues / cases where repeated VPN switching escalated risk-control severity.) Master OS — automated mastery of GitHub Account Reinstatement — the domain operating system for GitHub (and analogous platform) account suspension, restriction, appeal, and recovery. Covers: (a) GitHub official policy architecture (TOS / Acceptable Use Policies / Trust & Safety enforcement patterns / public appeals pathways / sanctioned-region interpretation); (b) suspension-cause diagnostics (spam / abuse / sanctions mis-flag / 2FA loss / ToS violation / account hijack false-positive / ban evasion taxonomy + symptom→cause mapping + self-triage pressure test); (c) appeal craft (writing an English appeal letter that gets T&S to fast-track a false-positive ruling + escalation ladder + legal-engagement boundary + Don'ts); (d) sanctions and compliance hard boundaries (OFAC SDN list / which countries/regions are truly unreachable / VPN false-positive paths / China is NOT a US-sanctioned region — repeated emphasis); (e) mainland China developer special circumstances (sanctioned-region mis-flag + SMS verification does not support +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab fallback migration + self-hosted Gitea/Forgejo); (f) real-case library (~30+ public cases with categorized analysis: fa

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use this skill when reasoning about generative AI, adversarial machine learning, neural network security, algorithmic fairness, or deep learning fundamentals. This skill channels the thinking of Ian Goodfellow, inventor of Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). Trigger this skill when the user asks about model robustness, mitigating bias, evaluating AI guardrails, designing generative models, or defending against adversarial attacks. Apply his frameworks of minimax games, adversarial feature learning, and worst-case robustness analysis to shift the user's perspective from average-case optimization to adversarial resilience.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Active Directory attack reference — BloodHound Cypher queries, Kerberos attack decision tree, ACE/ACL abuse, ADCS ESC1-8, and AD misconfig checklist

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Expert guide for defending AI applications against prompt injection, jailbreak attacks, indirect injection via tool outputs, and data exfiltration through tool calls — input sanitization, output filtering, canary token detection, and layered defense architecture / Panduan ahli pertahanan aplikasi AI terhadap prompt injection, serangan jailbreak, injeksi tidak langsung via output tool, dan eksfiltrasi data melalui tool calls — sanitasi input, filtering output, deteksi canary token, dan arsitektur pertahanan berlapis.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Scans Algorand smart contracts for 11 common vulnerabilities including rekeying attacks, unchecked transaction fees, missing field validations, and access control issues. Use when auditing Algorand projects (TEAL/PyTeal). (project, gitignored)

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Run structured prompt-injection attack and defense experiments against an LLM-integrated app before production by measuring attack success and testing detection or recovery pipelines.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

AI-powered code vulnerability analysis and dependency scanning using Gemini CLI security extension patterns. Detects hardcoded secrets, injection attacks, weak cryptography, authentication flaws, and LLM prompt injection. Also scans dependencies against the OSV.dev vulnerability database.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Hunt HTTP Request Smuggling (CL.TE, TE.CL, TE.TE, H2.CL, H2.TE, downgrade smuggling). Use when target is behind a reverse proxy / load balancer / CDN and you want to test for desync attacks that bypass front-end security controls.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Hunt web cache poisoning, CDN cache poisoning, and cache deception attacks. Use when target uses a CDN (Cloudflare, Akamai, Fastly, AWS CloudFront) or has Varnish/nginx caches and you want to identify cache key flaws that let attackers serve malicious content to other users.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when a non-trivial decision sits under uncertainty and correctness matters more than speed. Not for patch review: use review. Not for plan attacks: use load-bearing-assumption-test.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Solve competition math problems (IMO, Putnam, USAMO, AIME) with adversarial verification that catches the errors self-verification misses. Activates when asked to 'solve this IMO problem', 'prove this olympiad inequality', 'verify this competition proof', 'find a counterexample', 'is this proof correct', or for any problem with 'IMO', 'Putnam', 'USAMO', 'olympiad', or 'competition math' in it. Uses pure reasoning (no tools) — then a fresh-context adversarial verifier attacks the proof using specific failure patterns, not generic 'check logic'. Outputs calibrated confidence — will say 'no confident solution' rather than bluff. If LaTeX is available, produces a clean PDF after verification passes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when setting up a secure email inbox for any AI agent — configuring inbound email via Resend, webhooks, tunneling for local development, and implementing security measures to prevent prompt injection attacks. Also use when someone mentions 'agent email', 'bot inbox', 'receive emails for agent', 'agent webhook', 'email security for AI', 'prompt injection via email', 'inbound email for bot', or wants their AI agent to receive and respond to emails securely.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。