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/broken-object-level-authorizationWrote 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/broken-object-level-authorization)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills/broken-object-level-authorization"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills/broken-object-level-authorization/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/broken-object-level-authorization"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills/broken-object-level-authorization.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 | $0.00063 | $0.02170 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01085 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00434 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00217 |
Grade A, and why
broken-object-level-authorization 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 11d 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 broken-object-level-authorization — 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 — 175 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA/IDOR)
When to Use
- When engaging REST APIs executing actions utilizing user IDs, invoice numbers, or UUIDs in the URI path (e.g.,
/api/users/12or/api/invoice/ABC-123). - When actions refer to object primary keys inside POST/PUT bodies or query parameters.
- It is the #1 vulnerability in APIs according to the OWASP Top 10 API Security Project. Always test this relentlessly.
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: Identifying Resource Identifiers
# Concept: We must find where the API relies on an identifier to fetch, update, or delete data.
# Look closely at endpoints generating 200 OK status codes:
GET /api/v1/receipts/904 (Path variable)
POST /api/v1/messages?conversation_id=643 (Query parameter)
{"user_id": 99, "action": "delete"} (JSON body)
# The Threat: If I am User 99, can I read User 100's data simply by typing '100'?
Phase 2: Systematic Execution (Two-Account Testing)
# Concept: NEVER verify BOLA by testing arbitrary IDs blindly! You might delete or modify
# actual production users. ALWAYS test between two accounts YOU control: "Attacker" and "Victim".
# 1. Setup Phase
# Create Account A (Attacker): id = 100
# Create Account B (Victim): id = 200
# Post a private picture using Account B. Note the picture ID (e.g., pic_id=555).
# 2. Attack Execution
# Log into Account A (Attacker).
# Intercept the request fetching Account A's pictures:
GET /api/photos/100 HTTP/1.1
Authorization: Bearer <Attacker_Session>
# 3. Manipulation
# Change the path ID to the Victim's ID (or the Victim's picture ID):
GET /api/photos/200 HTTP/1.1
# or
DELETE /api/photo/555 HTTP/1.1
# 4. Result Validation
# If the server responds HTTP 200 OK and returns Victim B's sensitive data, the BOLA flaw is absolutely confirmed.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 175 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 2c01f373fff7
broken-object-level-authorization 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 63 tokens to every session and 2,170 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 broken-object-level-authorization, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
broken-object-level-authorization
Identify and exploit Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA), historically known as Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR), in API architectures. Extremely common and critical flaw where an API fails to validate whether the currently authenticated user actually owns or retains permissions over the specifically…
detecting-api-enumeration-attacks
Detect and prevent API enumeration attacks including BOLA and IDOR exploitation by monitoring sequential identifier access patterns and authorization failures.
idor-vulnerability-hunting
Detect and exploit Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerabilities in web applications and APIs. Use this skill when testing for unauthorized access to resources by manipulating object identifiers like user IDs, order numbers, file references, or API endpoints. Covers parameter tampering, UUID prediction, hash…
insecure-direct-object-reference-idor
Identify and exploit Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR), or Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA), vulnerabilities. Manipulate internal identifiers (e.g., user IDs, database primary keys, transaction IDs) within HTTP request parameters or API payloads to unauthorizedly access, modify, or delete data belonging…
graphql-idor
Identify and exploit Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) or Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA) vulnerabilities specifically within GraphQL APIs. This skill focuses on manipulating node IDs, changing variables, and utilizing aliases to access unauthorized data.
cors-misconfiguration-exploitation
Identify and exploit Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) misconfigurations. Use this skill when auditing APIs or web applications that share sensitive data across domains, forcing victims' browsers to inadvertently leak private information (e.g., API keys, PII, CSRF tokens) to an attacker-controlled website.