Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Adversaries may enumerate information about browsers to learn more about compromised environments.
.claude/skills/cyberstrikeus-t1217-browser-information-discovery/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 18% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 2% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 56% | 0% |
| case-20 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 0% | 0% |
| case-19 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | 68% | 0% |
Adversaries may enumerate information about browsers to learn more about compromised environments. Data saved by browsers (such as bookmarks, accounts, and browsing history) may reveal a variety of personal information about users (e.g., banking sites, relationships/interests, social media, etc.) as well as details about internal network resources such as servers, tools/dashboards, or other related infrastructure.
Browser information may also highlight additional targets after an adversary has access to valid credentials, especially Credentials In Files associated with logins cached by a browser.
Specific storage locations vary based on platform and/or application, but browser information is typically stored in local files and databases (e.g., %APPDATA%/Google/Chrome).
Platforms: Linux, macOS, Windows
The following tests are from Atomic Red Team and provide actionable ways to test this technique:
Searches for Mozilla Firefox's places.sqlite file (on FreeBSD or Linux distributions) that contains bookmarks and lists any found instances to a text file.
Supported Platforms: linux
bashfind / -path "*.mozilla/firefox/*/places.sqlite" 2>/dev/null -exec echo {} >> #{output_file} \; cat #{output_file} 2>/dev/null
Searches for Mozilla Firefox's places.sqlite file (on macOS) that contains bookmarks and lists any found instances to a text file.
Supported Platforms: macos
bashfind / -path "*/Firefox/Profiles/*/places.sqlite" -exec echo {} >> #{output_file} \; cat #{output_file} 2>/dev/null
Searches for Google Chrome's Bookmark file (on macOS) that contains bookmarks in JSON format and lists any found instances to a text file.
Supported Platforms: macos
bashfind / -path "*/Google/Chrome/*/Bookmarks" -exec echo {} >> #{output_file} \; cat #{output_file} 2>/dev/null
Searches for Google Chromium's Bookmark file (on FreeBSD) that contains bookmarks in JSON format and lists any found instances to a text file.
Supported Platforms: linux
bashfind / -path "*/.config/chromium/*/Bookmarks" -exec echo {} >> #{output_file} \; cat #{output_file} 2>/dev/null
Searches for Google Chrome's and Opera's Bookmarks file (on Windows distributions) that contains bookmarks. Upon execution, paths that contain bookmark files will be displayed.
Supported Platforms: windows
powershellGet-ChildItem -Path C:\Users\ -Filter Bookmarks -Recurse -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue -Force
If Atomic Red Team tests are not applicable, manually verify the technique by:
No specific mitigations documented for this technique.
| Finding | Severity | Impact | | -------------------------------------------------- | -------- | --------- | | Browser Information Discovery technique applicable | High | Discovery |
| CWE ID | Title | | ------- | --------------------------------- | | CWE-200 | Exposure of Sensitive Information |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 16,973 | 17,982 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,241 | 3,514 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 17,291 | 28,296 | +64% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,029 | 6,207 | +206% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 18,909 | 30,036 | +59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,679 | 6,253 | +133% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 9,598 | 9,459 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,684 | 1,992 | +18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | 13,736 | 16,197 | +18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,283 | 3,153 | +38% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | 4,881 | 6,807 | +39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 964 | 2,103 | +118% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 14,903 | 13,186 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,743 | 1,782 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 11,468 | 8,705 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,183 | 1,850 | +56% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 13,107 | 10,876 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,475 | 2,109 | +43% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | 21,961 | 18,337 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,481 | 3,740 | +51% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→fail | 12,096 | 6,038 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,181 | 1,981 | +68% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 23,407 | 5,973 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,274 | 2,018 | -38% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 11,716 | 9,528 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,134 | 1,823 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 17,772 | 12,901 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,004 | 2,413 | +20% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 8,181 | 6,740 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 530 | 1,410 | +166% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 14,895 | 7,576 | -49% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,571 | 1,606 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 9,660 | 7,895 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 661 | 1,657 | +151% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 9,753 | 10,478 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,801 | 2,057 | +14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 5,265 | 8,817 | +67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 867 | 1,594 | +84% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 17,660 | 11,397 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,098 | 2,095 | -0% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 18,189 | 4,929 | -73% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,128 | 1,564 | -27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 16,251 | 10,268 | -37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,550 | 1,451 | -6% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→fail | 13,125 | 24,348 | +86% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,151 | 2,960 | +157% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-24 | fail→fail | 8,131 | 8,193 | +1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 437 | 1,560 | +257% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-25 | fail→fail | 15,807 | 11,803 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,513 | 2,298 | +52% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 25 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +12 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 25 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.