2fa-bypass

Name: 2fa-bypass
Author: ShulkwiSEC

18stars5forks

How to install 2fa-bypass?

shulkwisec/bb-huge/2fa-bypass

$npx -y skills add ShulkwiSEC/bb-huge --skill 2fa-bypass

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Exploit pervasive logical flaws in Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA/2FA) implementations to bypass the secondary authentication challenge entirely. Techniques include response manipulation, referal spoofing, token reuse, and predictable backup codes.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# 2FA / MFA Bypass
2
3	## When to Use
4	- When auditing the authentication flow of a web or mobile application that implements SMS, Authenticator App (TOTP), or Email-based 2FA.
5	- To demonstrate how an attacker with compromised primary credentials (username/password) might circumvent the secondary layer of defense due to faulty business logic or state management by the server.
6
7
8	## Prerequisites
9	- Authorized scope and target URLs from bug bounty program
10	- Burp Suite Professional (or Community) configured with browser proxy
11	- Familiarity with OWASP Top 10 and common web vulnerability classes
12	- SecLists wordlists for fuzzing and enumeration
13
14	## Workflow
15
16	### Phase 1: Understanding 2FA Implementation Flaws
17
18	```text
19	# Concept: 2FA should be an unbreakable mathematical barrier However, developers often
20	# implement the logic Common Flaws :
21	# 1. Response Manipulation: Altering the server's boolean response .
22	# 2. Status Code Manipulation: Changing a 401 Unauthorized to a 200 OK 3. Direct Object Reference (Incomplete Auth): Navigating 4. Token Reuse/Predictability: 5. Rate Limit Missing: ```
23
24	### Phase 2: Exploitation via Response Manipulation
25
26	```http
27	# Concept: The server sends a boolean indicating if the 2FA code was correct 1. The Intercept (Attacker enters a wrong code: 000000) POST /api/v1/2fa/verify HTTP/1.1
28	Host: target.com
29	{"code": "000000"}
30
31	# 2. The Original Response HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
32	{"success": false, "message": "Invalid code"}
33
34	# 3. The Manipulation (Using Burp Suite 'Match and Replace' or manual interception )
35	HTTP/1.1 200 OK
36	{"success": true, "message": "Authenticated"}
37
38	# Result If the frontend exclusively handles the 2FA state ```
39
40	### Phase 3: Exploitation via Direct Routing Bypass (State Mismatch)
41
42	```http
43	# Concept: Sometimes, after validating the password the server sets the primary session cookie BEFORE the required 2FA 1. Login POST /login HTTP/1.1
44	{"username": "victim", "password": "Password1!"}
45
46	# Response HTTP/1.1 302 Found
47	Set-Cookie: session_id=abc123validthing;
48	Location: /2fa-challenge
49
50	# 2. The Bypass Instead of following the redirect GET /dashboard HTTP/1.1
51	Host: target.com
52	Cookie: session_id=abc123validthing;
53
54	# Result ```
55
56	### Phase 4: Exploitation via Token Guessing / Brute Force
57
58	```text
59	# Concept If a site ```
60
61	#### Decision Point 🔀
62	```mermaid
63	flowchart TD
64	A[Compromise ] --> B[Encounter 2FA Challenge ]
65	B --> C{Does ]}
66	C -->\|Yes\| D[Test ]
67	C -->\|No\| E[Check D --> F[Bypass ]
68	```
69
70	## 🔵 Blue Team Detection & Defense
71	- Server-Side Validation: Ensure Rate Limiting (Strict): Implement State Flow Enforcement: The server Key Concepts
72	\| Concept \| Description \|
73	\|---------\|-------------\|
74	## Output Format
75	```
76	2Fa Bypass — Assessment Report
77	============================================================
78	Target: [Target identifier]
79	Assessor: [Operator name]
80	Date: [Assessment date]
81	Scope: [Authorized scope]
82	MITRE ATT&CK: [Relevant technique IDs]
83
84	Findings Summary:
85	[Finding 1]: [Severity] — [Brief description]
86	[Finding 2]: [Severity] — [Brief description]
87
88	Detailed Results:
89	Phase 1: [Phase name]
90	- Result: [Outcome]
91	- Evidence: [Screenshot/log reference]
92	- Impact: [Business impact assessment]
93
94	Phase 2: [Phase name]
95	- Result: [Outcome]
96	- Evidence: [Screenshot/log reference]
97	- Impact: [Business impact assessment]
98
99	Risk Rating: [Critical/High/Medium/Low/Informational]
100	Recommendations:
101	1. [Immediate remediation step]
102	2. [Long-term hardening measure]
103	3. [Monitoring/detection improvement]
104	```
105
106
107	## 💰 Industry Bounty Payout Statistics (2024-2025)
108
109	\| Company/Platform \| Total Paid \| Highest Single \| Year \|
110	\|-----------------\|------------\|---------------\|------\|
111	\| Google VRP \| $17.1M \| $250,000 (CVE-2025-4609 Chrome sandbox escape) \| 2025 \|
112	\| Microsoft \| $16.6M \| (Not disclosed) \| 2024 \|
113	\| Google VRP \| $11.8M \| $100,115 (Chrome MiraclePtr Bypass) \| 2024 \|
114	\| HackerOne (all programs) \| $81M \| $100,050 (crypto firm) \| 2025 \|
115	\| Meta/Facebook \| $2.3M \| up to $300K (mobile code execution) \| 2024 \|
116	\| Crypto.com (HackerOne) \| $2M program \| $2M max \| 2024 \|
117	\| 1Password (Bugcrowd) \| $1M max \| $1M (highest Bugcrowd ever) \| 2024 \|
118	\| Samsung \| $1M max \| $1M (critical mobile flaws) \| 2025 \|
119
120	Key Takeaway: Google alone paid $17.1M in 2025 — a 40% increase YoY.

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

2fa-bypass

18stars5forks

View on GitHub

How to install 2fa-bypass?

shulkwisec/bb-huge/2fa-bypass

$npx -y skills add ShulkwiSEC/bb-huge --skill 2fa-bypass

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# 2FA / MFA Bypass
2
3	## When to Use
4	- When auditing the authentication flow of a web or mobile application that implements SMS, Authenticator App (TOTP), or Email-based 2FA.
5	- To demonstrate how an attacker with compromised primary credentials (username/password) might circumvent the secondary layer of defense due to faulty business logic or state management by the server.
6
7
8	## Prerequisites
9	- Authorized scope and target URLs from bug bounty program
10	- Burp Suite Professional (or Community) configured with browser proxy
11	- Familiarity with OWASP Top 10 and common web vulnerability classes
12	- SecLists wordlists for fuzzing and enumeration
13
14	## Workflow
15
16	### Phase 1: Understanding 2FA Implementation Flaws
17
18	```text
19	# Concept: 2FA should be an unbreakable mathematical barrier However, developers often
20	# implement the logic Common Flaws :
21	# 1. Response Manipulation: Altering the server's boolean response .
22	# 2. Status Code Manipulation: Changing a 401 Unauthorized to a 200 OK 3. Direct Object Reference (Incomplete Auth): Navigating 4. Token Reuse/Predictability: 5. Rate Limit Missing: ```
23
24	### Phase 2: Exploitation via Response Manipulation
25
26	```http
27	# Concept: The server sends a boolean indicating if the 2FA code was correct 1. The Intercept (Attacker enters a wrong code: 000000) POST /api/v1/2fa/verify HTTP/1.1
28	Host: target.com
29	{"code": "000000"}
30
31	# 2. The Original Response HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
32	{"success": false, "message": "Invalid code"}
33
34	# 3. The Manipulation (Using Burp Suite 'Match and Replace' or manual interception )
35	HTTP/1.1 200 OK
36	{"success": true, "message": "Authenticated"}
37
38	# Result If the frontend exclusively handles the 2FA state ```
39
40	### Phase 3: Exploitation via Direct Routing Bypass (State Mismatch)
41
42	```http
43	# Concept: Sometimes, after validating the password the server sets the primary session cookie BEFORE the required 2FA 1. Login POST /login HTTP/1.1
44	{"username": "victim", "password": "Password1!"}
45
46	# Response HTTP/1.1 302 Found
47	Set-Cookie: session_id=abc123validthing;
48	Location: /2fa-challenge
49
50	# 2. The Bypass Instead of following the redirect GET /dashboard HTTP/1.1
51	Host: target.com
52	Cookie: session_id=abc123validthing;
53
54	# Result ```
55
56	### Phase 4: Exploitation via Token Guessing / Brute Force
57
58	```text
59	# Concept If a site ```
60
61	#### Decision Point 🔀
62	```mermaid
63	flowchart TD
64	A[Compromise ] --> B[Encounter 2FA Challenge ]
65	B --> C{Does ]}
66	C -->\|Yes\| D[Test ]
67	C -->\|No\| E[Check D --> F[Bypass ]
68	```
69
70	## 🔵 Blue Team Detection & Defense
71	- Server-Side Validation: Ensure Rate Limiting (Strict): Implement State Flow Enforcement: The server Key Concepts
72	\| Concept \| Description \|
73	\|---------\|-------------\|
74	## Output Format
75	```
76	2Fa Bypass — Assessment Report
77	============================================================
78	Target: [Target identifier]
79	Assessor: [Operator name]
80	Date: [Assessment date]
81	Scope: [Authorized scope]
82	MITRE ATT&CK: [Relevant technique IDs]
83
84	Findings Summary:
85	[Finding 1]: [Severity] — [Brief description]
86	[Finding 2]: [Severity] — [Brief description]
87
88	Detailed Results:
89	Phase 1: [Phase name]
90	- Result: [Outcome]
91	- Evidence: [Screenshot/log reference]
92	- Impact: [Business impact assessment]
93
94	Phase 2: [Phase name]
95	- Result: [Outcome]
96	- Evidence: [Screenshot/log reference]
97	- Impact: [Business impact assessment]
98
99	Risk Rating: [Critical/High/Medium/Low/Informational]
100	Recommendations:
101	1. [Immediate remediation step]
102	2. [Long-term hardening measure]
103	3. [Monitoring/detection improvement]
104	```
105
106
107	## 💰 Industry Bounty Payout Statistics (2024-2025)
108
109	\| Company/Platform \| Total Paid \| Highest Single \| Year \|
110	\|-----------------\|------------\|---------------\|------\|
111	\| Google VRP \| $17.1M \| $250,000 (CVE-2025-4609 Chrome sandbox escape) \| 2025 \|
112	\| Microsoft \| $16.6M \| (Not disclosed) \| 2024 \|
113	\| Google VRP \| $11.8M \| $100,115 (Chrome MiraclePtr Bypass) \| 2024 \|
114	\| HackerOne (all programs) \| $81M \| $100,050 (crypto firm) \| 2025 \|
115	\| Meta/Facebook \| $2.3M \| up to $300K (mobile code execution) \| 2024 \|
116	\| Crypto.com (HackerOne) \| $2M program \| $2M max \| 2024 \|
117	\| 1Password (Bugcrowd) \| $1M max \| $1M (highest Bugcrowd ever) \| 2024 \|
118	\| Samsung \| $1M max \| $1M (critical mobile flaws) \| 2025 \|
119
120	Key Takeaway: Google alone paid $17.1M in 2025 — a 40% increase YoY.

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type