offensive-krack-fragattacks
This Claude Code item documents KRACK and FragAttacks, two families of WPA2 wireless attacks involving key reinstallation and frame fragmentation/aggregation exploitation. Use it when assessing legacy Wi-Fi clients, embedded devices, IoT systems, and older Android phones that lack patches from 2017–2022, as modern operating systems have mitigated these vulnerabilities but older implementations remain vulnerable.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/SnailSploit/Claude-Red /tmp/offensive-krack-fragattacks && cp -r /tmp/offensive-krack-fragattacks/Skills/wireless/offensive-krack-fragattacks ~/.claude/skills/offensive-krack-fragattacksSKILL.md
# KRACK & FragAttacks Two attack families against WPA2 client implementations. Both well-disclosed (KRACK 2017, FragAttacks 2021) and largely patched on modern OSes — but the embedded/IoT long tail keeps them in scope for many engagements. ## When These Apply | Family | Target | Patch Status | |---|---|---| | KRACK | WPA2 supplicants in 4-way handshake / GTK / FT / TDLS | Major OSes patched 2017–2018 | | FragAttacks | Frame fragmentation/aggregation across WPA2/3 | Most stacks patched 2021–2022 | Probability of success today is high only against: - Embedded OEM devices (cameras, sensors, point-of-sale) - Old Android phones (<8 unpatched) - Industrial / SCADA Wi-Fi clients - Wi-Fi-enabled toys, smart bulbs, no-name IoT Modern Win11 / iOS 16+ / Android 13+ / hostapd-2.10 are mitigated. ## KRACK — Key Reinstallation The 4-way handshake's M3 retransmission causes the supplicant to reinstall the same PTK with reset nonce/replay counters. Frames encrypted under the reused keystream become decryptable. ```bash # Vanhoef's official test scripts git clone https://github.com/vanhoefm/krackattacks-scripts cd krackattacks-scripts/krackattack sudo ./krack-test-client.py --interface wlan0 # Tests the supplicant on a connected client ``` Output identifies which CVE variants the client is vulnerable to. ### Practical Outcomes When successful: - Decryption of WPA2-encrypted frames between client and AP - TKIP downgrade enables packet injection - Recovery of session keys for the duration of the affected key cycle Not a PSK recovery — you don't get the wireless password from KRACK. ## FragAttacks — Frame Splicing FragAttacks abuse 802.11 fragmentation and aggregation to inject frames that mix encrypted and plaintext fragments, or to splice attacker-controlled fragments into legitimate frames. ```bash git clone https://github.com/vanhoefm/fragattacks cd fragattacks sudo ./test-fragattacks.py wlan0 --interface wlan0 # Suite of ~12 tests covering each variant ``` | CVE | Mechanism | |---|---| | CVE-2020-24588 | A-MSDU spoofing — inject crafted A-MSDU subframes | | CVE-2020-24587 | Mixed-key fragment cache poisoning | | CVE-2020-24586 | Decoupled fragment cache → reuse | | CVE-2020-26139 | Forwarding plaintext frames before authentication | | CVE-2020-26140 | Accepting plaintext frames in protected network | ### Practical Outcomes - Inject malicious frames that the client treats as legitimate (HTTP redirect, DNS poison) - Read decrypted fragments from cached state - Cross-protect data exfil via crafted A-MSDU ## Targeting Workflow 1. Identify the in-scope client (MAC, OS, vendor) 2. Estimate patch likelihood — if modern OS, likely patched; if embedded, likely vulnerable 3. Run the test suite from a controlled AP setup 4. Report each vulnerable variant separately with the matching CVE ```bash # Rogue AP that drives the test sudo hostapd-mana /tmp/krack_test_ap.conf # Force client to associate (deauth from real AP, or social-engineer) sudo aireplay-ng --deauth 5 -a <real-BSSID> -c <client-MAC> wlan0mon # Run test once associated sudo ./krack-test-client.py --interface wlan0 ``` ## Detection - WIPS may flag deauth-driven roams to attacker AP - Test scripts generate distinctive frame patterns; modern WIPS recognizes Vanhoef's tooling - Successful exploitation is essentially silent at protocol level ## Reporting For each vulnerable CVE: - Client model + firmware version (be specific) - Variant tested + result (vulnerable / patched / partial) - Practical impact in the engagement context (decryption only, or injection viable?) - Remediation: vendor patch URL, mitigation (WPA3 + PMF blocks most) --- ## Key References - KRACK: krackattacks.com (Vanhoef) - FragAttacks: fragattacks.com (Vanhoef) - Original papers: USENIX Security 2017 (KRACK), USENIX Security 2021 (FragAttacks) - CISA advisories tracking embedded vendor patches - Source: https://github.com/SnailSploit/offensive-checklist/blob/main/wireless.md
Active Directory attack methodology for internal network red team engagements. Covers reconnaissance (BloodHound, PowerView, ADExplorer), credential abuse (Kerberoasting, ASREProasting, NTLM relay, LLMNR/NBT-NS poisoning), privilege escalation (ACL abuse, GPO abuse, unconstrained/constrained delegation), lateral movement (Pass-the-Hash, Pass-the-Ticket, Overpass-the-Hash, WMI/WinRM/PsExec), persistence (Golden/Silver/Diamond Tickets, DCSync, DCShadow, AdminSDHolder, Skeleton Key), forest trust attacks, ADCS abuse (ESC1-ESC15), and modern MDI/Defender for Identity evasion. Use when assessing on-prem AD, hybrid AD/Entra ID environments, or ADCS deployments.
JWT attack methodology for penetration testers. Covers algorithm confusion (alg:none, RS256→HS256), weak HMAC secret brute force, kid parameter injection (SQLi, path traversal), jku/x5u/jwk header injection, JWKS cache poisoning, JWS/JWE confusion, timing attacks, and mobile JWT storage extraction. Use when testing JWT-based authentication, hunting auth bypass via token manipulation, or evaluating JWT implementation security in web or mobile apps.
Cloud security attack methodology covering AWS, Azure, and GCP. Includes credential harvesting (IMDS, ~/.aws, env vars, leaked CI secrets, instance roles), enumeration with cloud-specific tools (pacu, ScoutSuite, Prowler, ROADtools, gcp_enum), privilege escalation paths (IAM PassRole, AssumeRole chains, Lambda/Functions privilege flips, Azure Owner-on-self, GCP serviceAccountTokenCreator), persistence techniques (IAM user/key creation, AAD app registration, GCP svc account key creation, EventBridge/Logic Apps backdoors), data exfiltration (S3/Blob/GCS, snapshot share, RDS/CosmosDB/Cloud SQL exfil), cloud-native lateral movement (cross-account assume, Azure AD multi-tenant, GCP project hierarchy), serverless attacks (Lambda env vars, layer hijack, Step Functions), Kubernetes-on-cloud (EKS/AKS/GKE-specific paths to node and AWS metadata), and CSPM evasion (CloudTrail blind spots, GuardDuty mute, Sentinel rule shaping). Use when the engagement scope is cloud accounts, when you've stolen cloud credentials, or when assessing cloud posture.