Skip to content
KitploitKITPLOIT
ToolsBlog
Submit
ToolsBlog
Submit

Hacking, PenTest, and Cybersecurity Tools for Your Security Arsenal!

Kitploit is a directory of hacking, cybersecurity, and pentesting tools. Discover the latest project updates to find vulnerabilities, analyze systems, automate testing, and strengthen your security.

··Feeds·Contact·Privacy·© 2026 Kitploit

Tool Directory

Categories

View all categories
Loading categories
secdim-assurance-drift-challenge — SecDim Challenge Builder repro inspired by CVE-2026-88861: AAL1 MFA bypass at privileged credential boundary | Kitploit
Tools/GitHubGitHub/franklincg/secdim-assurance-drift-challenge
Authentication & AuthorizationVulnerability AnalysisWeb SecurityCTFIdentity & Access Management (IAM)Learning & EducationAPI SecurityLabs & Practice

Most Popular

View all →

Discover the most used tools by our community.

Explore all tools

Browse our collection of tools

View all tools →
Share
GitHub
franklincg/secdim-assurance-drift-challenge

secdim-assurance-drift-challenge

SecDim Challenge Builder repro inspired by CVE-2026-88861: AAL1 MFA bypass at privileged credential boundary

View Repository
5h 41m agoNot yet reviewed

SecDim Challenge Builder Repro — Assurance Drift

Working reproduction for a proposed security challenge inspired by CVE-2026-88861, published 10 September 2026.

Security concept

The application correctly verifies a signed session and correctly checks the admin role, but it collapses two independent security properties: identity/role and authentication assurance. A password-only aal1 session can call a privileged credential-creation path that should require step-up MFA (aal2). The resulting app-scoped admin key is durable and remains usable after the original session is logged out.

This models a realistic MFA-bypass failure at the authorization boundary, rather than a broken signature or forged token.

Working repro

root@kitploit:~
go test -v ./...

The tests demonstrate the complete local attack chain:

  1. obtain a valid, signed password-only admin session (aal1);
  2. use the vulnerable authorization path to mint a privileged API key;
  3. log out the original session;
  4. continue performing privileged actions with the minted key.

No external service, credential, or production target is involved.

Intended challenge shape

  • Stack: Go, standard library only
  • Suggested difficulty: intermediate / advanced
  • Primary lesson: MFA is an authorization property for sensitive operations, not merely a login UI step.
  • Learner task: preserve role checks, session revocation and normal user behavior while enforcing step-up assurance at every durable privilege-escalation boundary.
  • Hidden-test directions: independent role-vs-AAL checks, stale/revoked sessions, downgraded sessions, key creation/rotation, malformed assurance claims, and ensuring AAL2 does not accidentally grant admin role.
  • Why it is non-trivial: the token is valid and correctly signed; the role is valid; the failure is semantic and occurs after authentication succeeds. Fixes that merely strengthen token verification, add MFA at login, or check only the role still fail the security contract.

Mapping

  • CWE-288 — Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel
  • CWE-287 — Improper Authentication
  • OWASP A07:2021 — Identification and Authentication Failures
  • OWASP API5/API6 themes — function authorization and sensitive business flows

Grounding

The scenario is inspired by the assurance-level enforcement failure described for CVE-2026-88861 (Capgo/Supabase AAL1 session bypassing MFA on a privileged RBAC path). This reproduction is original, reduced, and self-contained; it does not copy the affected project.

Remediation demonstrated

secureCreatePrivilegedAPIKey requires both admin authorization and aal2 step-up assurance, while activePrincipal independently enforces session revocation. The tests intentionally verify that neither condition substitutes for the other.

Download Tool