broken-authentication — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited broken-authentication (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
⚠️ AUTHORIZED USE ONLY This skill is for educational purposes or authorized security assessments only. You must have explicit, written permission from the system owner before using this tool. Misuse of this tool is illegal and strictly prohibited.
Mandatory confirmation gate Before running any command that probes, exploits, changes, persists on, extracts data from, or attempts credential access against a target: 1. Ask the user to state the exact target URL, IP, account, or resource. 2. Ask the user to confirm written authorization and the permitted scope. 3. Show the exact command(s) and explain their expected effect. 4. Wait for explicit confirmation in the current conversation.
>
Without that confirmation, remain read-only and provide defensive guidance only. Prefer a sandbox, disposable VM, or controlled lab.
Identify and exploit authentication and session management vulnerabilities in web applications. Broken authentication consistently ranks in the OWASP Top 10 and can lead to account takeover, identity theft, and unauthorized access to sensitive systems. This skill covers testing methodologies for password policies, session handling, multi-factor authentication, and credential management.
Understand the application's authentication architecture:
# Identify authentication type
- Password-based (forms, basic auth, digest)
- Token-based (JWT, OAuth, API keys)
- Certificate-based (mutual TLS)
- Multi-factor (SMS, TOTP, hardware tokens)
# Map authentication endpoints
/login, /signin, /authenticate
/register, /signup
/forgot-password, /reset-password
/logout, /signout
/api/auth/*, /oauth/*Capture and analyze authentication requests:
POST /login HTTP/1.1
Host: target.invalid
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
username=test&password=test123Evaluate password requirements and enforcement:
# Test minimum length (a, ab, abcdefgh)
# Test complexity (password, password1, Password1!)
# Test common weak passwords (123456, password, qwerty, admin)
# Test username as password (admin/admin, test/test)Assess the applicable policy and threat model. Lack of character-composition rules is not itself a defect; prioritize length, compromised-password blocklists and rate limits. See NIST SP800-63B-4.
Test for username enumeration vulnerabilities:
# Compare responses for valid vs invalid usernames
# Invalid: "Invalid username" vs Valid: "Invalid password"
# Check timing differences, response codes, registration messages"Email sent if account exists" (secure) "No account with that email" (leaks info)
{"error": "user_not_found"} {"error": "invalid_password"}
### Phase 4: Brute Force Testing
Test account lockout and rate limiting:
hydra -l admin -P /usr/share/wordlists/rockyou.txt \ target.invalid http-post-form \ "/login:username=^USER^&password=^PASS^:Invalid credentials"
Check for protections:
### Phase 5: Credential Stuffing
Use synthetic paired credentials for explicitly authorized test accounts, never unrelated breached accounts:
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.