
Web Pentest
- 143 installs
- 341 repo stars
- Updated May 27, 2026
- briiirussell/cybersecurity-skills
Web Pentest is a Claude Code skill that runs authorized black-box or grey-box web application penetration tests following the OWASP Web Security Testing Guide.
About
Web Pentest is a Claude skill for structured black-box or grey-box penetration testing of a live web application against an authorized target. It follows the OWASP Web Security Testing Guide across configuration, identity, authentication, authorization, and session-management phases, with Burp Suite and ZAP workflows. A developer or tester uses it once they have a target and credentials to probe for auth bypass, IDOR, and business-logic flaws. It requires explicit written authorization before touching the target.
- Runs black-box and grey-box web application penetration tests
- Follows the OWASP WSTG across auth, session, and authorization phases
- Emphasizes IDOR/BOLA and BFLA as the highest-yield findings
Web Pentest by the numbers
- 143 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- Ranked #907 of 2,203 Security skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Data as of Aug 5, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
web-pentest capabilities & compatibility
- Capabilities
- threat modeling · red team engagement · vuln research · secrets audit
- Use cases
- security audit · testing
- Pricing
- Free
What web-pentest says it does
Structured black-box / grey-box penetration testing of a live web application against an authorized target.
Follows the OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (WSTG) structure.
Never assume authorization.
npx skills add https://github.com/briiirussell/cybersecurity-skills --skill web-pentestAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 143 |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 341 |
| Last updated | May 27, 2026 |
| Repository | briiirussell/cybersecurity-skills ↗ |
What it does
Perform an authorized black-box or grey-box web application penetration test following the OWASP WSTG.
Who is it for?
Testing a live, authorized web application for auth bypass, IDOR, and business-logic flaws.
Skip if: Reading source code for vulnerabilities, which it delegates to owasp-audit, or unauthorized targets.
When should I use this skill?
You have written authorization and a target list to penetration-test a live web application.
What you get
Documented, evidence-backed findings across configuration, auth, authorization, and session-management phases.
- Evidence-backed vulnerability findings
- Reproduction steps per finding
By the numbers
- five-phase WSTG-based methodology
- four-point authorization check
Files
Web Pentest — Live Web Application Testing
Structured black-box / grey-box penetration testing of a live web application against an authorized target. Pairs with recon (which maps the surface) and complements owasp-audit (which reads the source). Use recon first; use this once you have a target list and credentials (or guest access).
Authorization Check
Before touching the target, confirm: 1. Written authorization for this specific application (pentest engagement, bug bounty in-scope domain, CTF/lab, your own asset) 2. The application is currently in scope and live (not deprecated, not under maintenance freeze) 3. Test credentials provided (if grey-box), or guest access confirmed (if black-box) 4. Out-of-scope items documented — production user data, payment flows, social engineering, DoS
If anything is unclear, ask before proceeding. Never assume authorization.
Methodology
Follows the OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (WSTG) structure. Each phase produces evidence; document everything as you go.
Phase 1: Configuration & deployment
Goal: understand what's running and how it's exposed.
- HTTP headers — pull with
curl -Iandcurl -I -H "Origin: https://evil.com": Server,X-Powered-Byrevealing stack- HSTS, CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options presence and values
- CORS —
Access-Control-Allow-Originreflection without an allow-list,Allow-Credentials: truepaired with* - TLS —
testssl.sh https://targetorsslyze --regular target - Backups / configs exposed —
/.git/,/.env,/backup.sql,/web.config,/server-status,/.aws/credentials - Default admin paths —
/admin,/administrator,/manage,/console,/actuator/,/_debug/,/swagger,/graphql,/.well-known/ - Robots.txt and sitemap.xml — often list non-indexed but accessible endpoints
- Subdomain & host header testing — does the app behave differently when sent
Host: internal.target.com?
Phase 2: Identity management
Goal: understand who can be created, how, and with what privileges.
- Registration — can you self-register? Does the role default to anything other than "user"?
- Username enumeration via differential responses on signup ("email already exists"), login ("user not found" vs "wrong password"), password reset ("we sent an email" vs "no such user")
- Account provisioning — does a verification email arrive? Can it be skipped? Does the reset link expire? Does the reset link tie to the original session?
- Account lockout vs rate-limit — does 100 failed logins lock the account (denial of service vector) or just slow down (good)?
Phase 3: Authentication
Goal: break in as someone you shouldn't be.
- Login form — is HTTPS enforced? Are credentials sent in URL params (logged everywhere)?
- Password policy — minimum length / complexity / breach-database check (haveibeenpwned API)
- MFA — required for admin / privileged users? Bypass paths (recovery code, "remember this device" cookie persistence, downgrade to SMS)?
- Session token — entropy looks high? Cookie has
HttpOnly,Secure,SameSite=LaxorStrict? - Session fixation — does the session ID rotate on login? Pre-auth session ID still valid post-auth?
- "Remember me" — long-lived token in a separate cookie; revocable on logout from all devices?
- Logout — does it actually invalidate the session server-side? (Test by replaying the cookie post-logout.)
- Password reset — token format, expiration, single-use, host-header poisoning (
Host: evil.comin the reset email link) - OAuth flow — PKCE used?
stateparameter validated?redirect_uristrictly matched (not prefix-matched)?
Phase 4: Authorization (the highest-yield phase)
Goal: access things you shouldn't.
Horizontal privilege escalation (IDOR / BOLA):
- Sign in as user A. Get a resource that belongs to user A. Note the ID.
- Sign in as user B. Try to access user A's resource by ID — direct fetch, in the body of an update, as a foreign key in another operation.
- Watch for response codes — 200 (bad), 403 (good), 404 (good if all unauthorized requests return 404; bad if your own 404 looks different)
- Try every endpoint that takes an ID —
GET /users/:id,POST /users/:id/...,DELETE /users/:id,GET /api/users/:id/orders, GraphQLuser(id: ...)
Vertical privilege escalation (BFLA):
- Identify admin-only routes (from
/admin/*exploration, from JS bundle strings, from Burp's site map) - Hit them as a regular user. 403 (good), 200 (very bad)
- Check for verb tampering —
DELETE /admin/users/xblocked, butPOST /admin/users/x/deleteworks - Mass assignment — registration endpoint that accepts
{ role: "admin" }because it doesUser.create(req.body)without filtering
Tenant isolation (multi-tenant SaaS):
- Create org A with user U1. Create org B with user U2.
- As U1, try every URL that includes the org/tenant ID and swap it to org B's. Expect 403 / 404 on every one. A 200 is a tenancy break.
Phase 5: Session management
- Session token in URL? Anywhere logged → access logs leak it
- Concurrent sessions allowed? Should be configurable / loggable
- Token after password change — invalidated everywhere? (Test by changing password in browser 1 and replaying browser 2's cookie.)
- CSRF protection — synchronizer token, SameSite cookie, custom request header? Test by forging a request from a different origin
Phase 6: Input validation
For each input — URL params, query strings, headers, JSON bodies, file uploads:
- XSS — reflected (in error pages, search results,
<title>injection), stored (in profile fields, comments, file names), DOM (look at JS sinks likeinnerHTML,eval,location) - Payload bank — see
owasp-auditVerify Fixes XSS payloads - SQLi —
' OR 1=1 --, time-based blind ('; SELECT pg_sleep(5)--), error-based, UNION-based - Modern stacks usually use parameterized queries; look for the one endpoint that didn't get the memo
- Command injection — anywhere file names, image processing, PDF generation, or shell-out happens
- SSRF — webhook URLs, image-fetch, PDF render — see
owasp-auditA10 bypass matrix - XXE — XML inputs in SOAP / SVG-upload / DOCX-import paths
- Server-side template injection —
{{7*7}}in a name field renders49? You're in - Open redirect — see
owasp-auditA01 with control-byte rejection - Insecure deserialization — base64-decode any opaque tokens and look for serialized format markers (
O:for PHP,\xac\xedfor Java,cos\nsystemfor Python pickle)
Phase 7: Error handling
- Stack traces visible in 500 responses
- Database errors leak schema (table names, column names)
- File paths leak server filesystem layout
- Different errors for valid vs invalid usernames (enumeration)
/health//status//metrics//actuator/*exposed
Phase 8: Business logic
The category most scanners can't touch. Look at what the app is supposed to do and ask "what if I do that, but wrong?"
- Race conditions — submit the same coupon code 100× concurrently; can you redeem it more than once?
- Negative numbers — can you transfer
-100and credit yourself? - Out-of-order workflows — can you complete step 4 before step 2?
- Quota bypass — free tier limits enforced server-side or just in the UI?
- Workflow approval — can you approve your own request by tampering with
approver_id? - File upload — can you upload an
.htmland have the server serve it withContent-Type: text/html?
Phase 9: Client-side
- JS bundle review —
view-source:/ DevTools, look for inline secrets, API keys, internal endpoint hints - CSP — try to inject a
<script>and see if it's blocked - Browser storage — what's in
localStorage/sessionStorage/ IndexedDB? Tokens? PII? - Cross-origin — can
postMessagefrom your origin reach the app's window without origin check?
Tooling
- Burp Suite Community (free) — proxy, repeater, intruder (rate-limited), decoder
- Burp Suite Pro — scanner, faster intruder, session handling rules
- OWASP ZAP — free alternative, active scanner, fuzzer
- ffuf / feroxbuster / gobuster — directory and parameter brute-forcing
- sqlmap — SQLi exploitation (use carefully; can be noisy and destructive —
--risk=1 --level=1to start) - dalfox / XSStrike — XSS scanners (high false-positive; use as a starting point)
- nuclei — template-driven vulnerability scanner; the templates themselves are excellent reading
- curl / httpie — repeatable manual requests; everything you find should reduce to a curl command
Output Format
# Web Application Pentest Report
## Target: [target name and scope]
## Engagement window: [start - end]
## Methodology: OWASP WSTG
## Date: [date]
### Executive summary
[2-3 paragraphs — overall posture, top 3 critical findings, business impact]
### Findings
| ID | Severity | OWASP | CWE | Title |
|----|----------|-------|-----|-------|
### Per-finding detail
#### [SEVERITY] [Title]
**Endpoint:** `METHOD /path`
**OWASP / CWE:** WSTG-XXX / CWE-XXX
**Description:** [what + why it matters]
**Proof of concept:**
[curl / Burp request showing the issue, minimal viable repro]
**Observed response:**
[response excerpt showing the issue]
**Remediation:**
[concrete fix + reference to owasp-audit or api-audit if applicable]
**Risk rating:** [Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info — with rationale]
**Verification:** [what to re-test after fix]
### Out-of-scope / not tested
[Anything skipped, with reason]
### Recommendations
[Prioritized 30/60/90 day fixes]Boundaries
- Stay strictly within the authorized scope — never test adjacent systems, subdomains, or third-party services without explicit confirmation
- Rate-limit your own testing — Burp Intruder at 100 req/s for hours is indistinguishable from a DoS attack
- Never modify or destroy real user data — test on test accounts you own, or test data you created
- If you find evidence of active compromise (someone else's webshell, exfiltration in progress), STOP testing and notify the user immediately
- Refuse requests to test systems without authorization
- Refuse to weaponize findings — proof-of-concept is the minimum viable demonstration, not a working exploit kit
- For DoS / availability testing, get explicit written approval naming the maintenance window
- For social engineering / phishing tests, scope must explicitly name this — it is not "in" pentest scope by default
References
- OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (WSTG) — canonical methodology
- OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS) — checklist version
- PTES (Penetration Testing Execution Standard)
- Bug Bounty Methodology (Jason Haddix / TBHM)
- PortSwigger Web Security Academy — free training labs
- HackTricks (book.hacktricks.xyz) — technique reference (verify against fresh sources; HackTricks aggregates community knowledge of varying quality)
Related skills
FAQ
What is the highest-yield pentest phase?
Authorization testing, including horizontal (IDOR/BOLA) and vertical (BFLA) privilege escalation and tenant-isolation checks.
What is required before testing?
Written authorization for the specific application, confirmation it is in scope and live, and documented out-of-scope items.