bb-methodology
The bb-methodology skill orchestrates bug bounty hunting sessions by combining a five-phase non-linear workflow with critical thinking frameworks covering developer psychology and anomaly detection. Use it at the start of hunting sessions, when switching targets, when feeling directionally lost, or when deciding what to do next. It first confirms engagement type (bug bounty vs. red team vs. pentest vs. audit) to calibrate what counts as a valid finding, then guides hunters through mindset discipline and phase-specific routing.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter /tmp/bb-methodology && cp -r /tmp/bb-methodology/skills/bb-methodology ~/.claude/skills/bb-methodologySKILL.md
# Bug Bounty Methodology: Workflow + Mindset Master orchestrator for hunting sessions. Combines the 5-phase non-linear workflow with the critical thinking framework that separates top 1% hunters from the rest. --- ## PART 0: MODE CONFIRMATION (Before Anything Else) **Confirm the engagement type before deciding what counts as a finding.** The same target produces a different report shape depending on which mode applies. Getting this wrong is the single biggest waste of time in this workflow — answer it explicitly before Phase 0. | Engagement type | What counts as a finding | What gets rejected | |---|---|---| | **Bug bounty** (H1 / Bugcrowd / Intigriti / private VDP) | Impact-demonstrated bugs ONLY. Full chain to attacker-attainable harm. | Hygiene (EoL software alone, permissive CSP alone, stack traces, info disclosure without concrete impact, "best practice" violations) | | **Red team** (external client engagement) | Hygiene findings + recon + IoCs + defensive-state observations are ALL deliverables | Nothing — even "no finding here" is reportable as a positive defensive observation | | **Pentest** (signed SoW / WAPT) | Depends on SoW. Read scope explicitly. Usually accepts hygiene + impact + recon | Out-of-scope assets, unsigned testing | | **Internal audit** | Compliance-mapped findings (PCI / ISO / NIST / DPDPA / GDPR) | Findings without a control-mapping | **Hard rule:** Before Phase 0 runs, write the engagement type as the first line in your hunt notes. If you can't answer it from the user's instruction, ASK once. Don't assume — the mistake costs both you and the triager. **Lesson from an authorized engagement:** First-pass on this target produced 5 hygiene findings (SP2013 EoL, permissive CSP, stack traces) shipped in red-team format. The engagement was bug-bounty. Findings would have been N/A'd as "informational, no impact demonstrated." After the corrected pass with hygiene-as-context-not-finding, the same target yielded 11 impact-demonstrated bugs including 3 Critical. --- ## PART 1: MINDSET (How to Think) ### Core Principle Hunting is not "find a bug" -- it is "prove an attack scenario." Think like an attacker with a specific goal, not a scanner looking for patterns. ### Daily Discipline: Define, Select, Execute Before touching any tool: 1. **Define**: "Today I target [feature/domain] to achieve [CIA impact]" 2. **Select**: Choose 1-2 vuln classes (IDOR, Race Condition, etc.) 3. **Execute**: Focus ONLY on selected techniques. No wandering. ### 5 Ultimate Goals (Pick One Per Session) 1. **Confidentiality** -- steal data the attacker shouldn't see 2. **Integrity** -- modify data the attacker shouldn't change 3. **Availability** -- disrupt service (app-level DoS only) 4. **Account Takeover** -- control another user's account 5. **RCE** -- execute commands on the server ### 4 Thinking Domains #### 1. Critical Thinking (deep analysis) **Question trust boundaries:** - Frontend control disabled? Send request directly via proxy - `user_role=user` cookie? Change to `admin` - `price=1000` in POST? Change to `1` - `<script>` blocked? Try `<img onerror=...>` **Reverse-engineer developer psychology:** - Feature A has auth checks -> Similar feature B (newly added) probably doesn't - Complex flows (coupon + points + refund) -> Edge cases have bugs - `/api/v2/user` exists -> Does `/api/v1/user` still work with weaker auth? **What-If experiments:** - Skip checkout -> hit `/checkout/success` directly - Skip 2FA -> navigate to `/dashboard` - Send coupon request 10x simultaneously -> Race condition? - Replace `guid=f8a2...` with `id=100` on sibling endpoint -> IDOR? #### 2. Multi-Perspective (multiple angles) | Perspective | What to check | |------------|---------------| | Horizontal (same role) | User A's token + User B's ID -> IDOR | | Vertical (different role) | Regular user -> `/admin/deleteUser` | | Data flow (proxy view) | Hidden params in JSON: `debug=false`, `discount_rate` | | Time/State | Race conditions, post-delete session reuse | | Client environment | Mobile UA -> legacy API with weaker auth | | Business impact | "What's the $ damage if this breaks?" | #### 3. Tactical Thinking (pattern detection) - **Naming anomaly**: `userId` everywhere but suddenly `user_id` -> different dev, weaker security - **Error diff**: Same 403 but different JSON structure -> different backend systems - **Environment diff**: Prod vs Dev/Staging -> debug headers, CSP disabled - **Version diff**: JS file before/after update -> new endpoints, removed params - **Supply chain**: Check framework/library versions for known CVEs - **Third-party integration**: Stripe/Auth0/Intercom -> webhook signature missing? #### 4. Strategic Thinking (big picture) - **Asymmetry**: Defender must patch ALL holes. You only need ONE. - **Intuition engineering**: Log why something "feels wrong." Verify later. Update mental DB. - **Unknown management**: Can't understand something? Add to "investigate later" list. Just-in-Time Learning. ### Amateur vs Pro: 7-Phase Comparison | Phase | Amateur | Pro | |-------|---------|-----| | Recon | Main domain only | Shadow IT, dev environments, all assets | | Discovery | Look for errors | Look for design contradictions, business logic flaws | | Exploit | Give up when blocked | Build filter-bypass payloads | | Escalation | Report the phenomenon only | Chain to real harm (session steal, ATO) | | Feasibility | Include unrealistic conditions | Minimize attack prerequisites | | Reporting | State facts only | Quantify business risk | | Retest | Check if old PoC fails | Analyze fix method, find incomplete patches | ### Two Approach Routes - **Route A (Feature-based)**: "This feature is complex" -> deep-dive its input handling -> find vuln - **Route B (Vuln-based)**: "I want IDOR" -> find endpoints with sequential IDs -> test access control ### Anti-Patterns (Stop Doing These) - **Program hopping**: Stick with one target minimum 2 weeks / 30 hours - **Tool-only hunting**
End-to-end Android APK red-team pipeline — automated APK acquisition (Play Store + apkpure + apkmirror fallback), jadx decompilation, secret/URL/JWT/Firebase grep, pinned-cert extraction, exported-component enumeration, Frida runtime instrumentation templates, intent-injection probes. Built from an authorized external red-team engagement where 7 APKs were pulled manually, 4 download attempts truncated, and a hardcoded JWT + 30 internal API endpoints were recovered from one of the apps. Use when target has a mobile app catalogue (Play Store developer page), when you find an APK URL hosted on a web server, or when post-recon mentions "mobile app" in scope.
Run autonomous hunt loop on a target — scope check → recon → rank surface → hunt → validate → report with configurable checkpoints. Usage: /autopilot target.com [--paranoid|--normal|--yolo]
Local-tooling companion to the bug-bounty orchestrator — carries the SAME complete bug-bounty workflow, but reach for THIS variant when you also need to resolve where tools, wordlists, and clones are installed on the local machine (jhaddix, SecLists, trufflehog, ffuf, dalfox, ghauri); for pure orchestration/routing use the bug-bounty skill. Workflow it covers — recon (subdomain enumeration, asset discovery, fingerprinting, HackerOne scope, source code audit), pre-hunt learning (disclosed reports, tech stack research, mind maps, threat modeling), vulnerability hunting (IDOR, SSRF, XSS, auth bypass, CSRF, race conditions, SQLi, XXE, file upload, business logic, GraphQL, HTTP smuggling, cache poisoning, OAuth, timing side-channels, OIDC, SSTI, subdomain takeover, cloud misconfig, ATO chains, agentic AI), LLM/AI security testing (chatbot IDOR, prompt injection, indirect injection, ASCII smuggling, exfil channels, RCE via code tools, system prompt extraction, ASI01-ASI10), A-to-B bug chaining (IDOR→auth bypass, SSRF→cloud metadata, XSS→ATO, open redirect→OAuth theft, S3→bundle→secret→OAuth), bypass tables (SSRF IP bypass, open redirect bypass, file upload bypass), language-specific grep (JS prototype pollution, Python pickle, PHP type juggling, Go template.HTML, Ruby YAML.load, Rust unwrap), and reporting (7-Question Gate, 4 validation gates, human-tone writing, templates by vuln class, CVSS 3.1, PoC generation, always-rejected list, conditional chain table, submission checklist). Use when you need the local install path of a tool / wordlist / clone for a hunt, or as the full-workflow variant when operating from this local toolkit; for general routing use the bug-bounty skill. 中文触发词：漏洞赏金、安全测试、渗透测试、漏洞挖掘、信息收集、子域名枚举、XSS测试、SQL注入、SSRF、安全审计、漏洞报告
Complete bug bounty workflow — recon (subdomain enumeration, asset discovery, fingerprinting, HackerOne scope, source code audit), pre-hunt learning (disclosed reports, tech stack research, mind maps, threat modeling), vulnerability hunting (IDOR, SSRF, XSS, auth bypass, CSRF, race conditions, SQLi, XXE, file upload, business logic, GraphQL, HTTP smuggling, cache poisoning, OAuth, timing side-channels, OIDC, SSTI, subdomain takeover, cloud misconfig, ATO chains, agentic AI), LLM/AI security testing (chatbot IDOR, prompt injection, indirect injection, ASCII smuggling, exfil channels, RCE via code tools, system prompt extraction, ASI01-ASI10), A-to-B bug chaining (IDOR→auth bypass, SSRF→cloud metadata, XSS→ATO, open redirect→OAuth theft, S3→bundle→secret→OAuth), bypass tables (SSRF IP bypass, open redirect bypass, file upload bypass), language-specific grep (JS prototype pollution, Python pickle, PHP type juggling, Go template.HTML, Ruby YAML.load, Rust unwrap), and reporting (7-Question Gate, 4 validation gates, human-tone writing, templates by vuln class, CVSS 3.1, PoC generation, always-rejected list, conditional chain table, submission checklist). Use for ANY bug bounty task — starting a new target, doing recon, hunting specific vulns, auditing source code, testing AI features, validating findings, or writing reports. 中文触发词：漏洞赏金、安全测试、渗透测试、漏洞挖掘、信息收集、子域名枚举、XSS测试、SQL注入、SSRF、安全审计、漏洞报告
Bugcrowd-specific reporting tactics complementing report-writing: VRT category search-and-fallback strategy when no exact match exists, manual severity override when VRT defaults underrate impact, severity-request paragraph as first body section, OOS-clause rebuttal templates (rate limiting on auth-flow endpoints, debug-info framing, user-enumeration with sensitive PII, theoretical-issue counter), chained-finding cross-reference patterns, target selection for QA-vs-prod programs, researcher-side hygiene (Bugcrowdninja email alias, account state restoration, friendly-tester posture). Use when filing a Bugcrowd submission, when VRT default seems wrong, when triager closes as OOS or downgrades severity, when chaining linked submissions, or when scope distinguishes production from QA. Pairs with report-writing and triage-validation.
Build an exploit chain — given bug A, finds B and C to combine for higher severity and payout. Knows common chain patterns: IDOR→ATO, SSRF→cloud metadata, XSS→ATO, open redirect→OAuth theft, S3→bundle→secret→OAuth. Usage: /chain
Cloud IAM red-team attack chain across AWS, Azure, GCP — focused on EXTERNAL exploitation paths and post-credential-discovery privilege analysis. Covers IAM enumeration (aws iam, az role, gcloud iam), STS/AssumeRole chaining, Azure Managed Identity abuse (via SSRF/leak), GCP service account JSON abuse, IMDSv1/v2 attacks via SSRF, K8s ServiceAccount token privilege analysis once held (token discovery / cluster exposure is owned by hunt-k8s), role-trust-policy confused-deputy, cross-account assume-role enumeration, IAM privilege escalation patterns (24+ AWS, 8+ Azure, 6+ GCP), and AWS Cognito Identity Pool unauthenticated-role attack chain (GetId → GetCredentialsForIdentity → IAM role abuse). Built for the case where recon yields a credential (key, JSON, token) and you need to know what it grants and how to escalate. Use when an AWS key / Azure secret / GCP service account JSON / K8s SA token surfaces from a code repo, JS bundle, APK, breach corpus, or SSRF chain.
External SSL VPN / remote-access appliance attack matrix — Cisco ASA/AnyConnect, Fortinet FortiGate/FortiOS, Citrix NetScaler/ADC, Palo Alto GlobalProtect, Pulse Secure / Ivanti Connect Secure, SonicWall, F5 Big-IP. Covers version fingerprinting, CVE matrix (2018-2026), AAA backend identification, default credentials, configuration-disclosure paths, pre-auth RCE/SSRF/path-traversal exploits where applicable. Built from authorized-engagement Cisco ASA testing plus 2024-2026 enterprise VPN CVE landscape. Use whenever the target's perimeter exposes any SSL VPN appliance or remote-access gateway — these are the most common initial-access points in 2024-2026 actor TTPs.