Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add UnboundCompute/security-agent-skills --skill hunting-dotnet-deserialization-type-injectiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/UnboundCompute/security-agent-skillsWrote 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/unboundcompute/security-agent-skills/hunting-dotnet-deserialization-type-injection)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/unboundcompute/security-agent-skills/hunting-dotnet-deserialization-type-injection"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/unboundcompute/security-agent-skills/hunting-dotnet-deserialization-type-injection/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/unboundcompute/security-agent-skills/hunting-dotnet-deserialization-type-injection"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/unboundcompute/security-agent-skills/hunting-dotnet-deserialization-type-injection.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 | $0.00162 | $0.01932 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00065 | $0.00773 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00386 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00193 |
Grade A, and why
hunting-dotnet-deserialization-type-injection 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Hunting .NET deserialization and type injection: when the payload picks the type
.NET deserialization is dangerous for a specific reason: several formatters read the concrete type to
instantiate from the serialized data, not from the declared target. When BinaryFormatter,
SoapFormatter, NetDataContractSerializer, the ViewState formatters, or a JSON serializer with
type-name handling turned on processes attacker data, the attacker chooses which class gets constructed.
That lets them instantiate a gadget type whose property setters, deserialization callbacks, or type
converters perform a side effect, chaining to a process start, a command, or a file operation. The fix is
almost always to stop resolving types from the data. You find these by locating every formatter that
honors an embedded or annotated type and asking whether untrusted bytes reach it.
When to use
- A service reads serialized .NET objects from a request, ViewState, a cookie, a queue, or a cache.
- A formatter in use resolves the type from the payload or has type-name handling enabled.
- Reachable assemblies carry a gadget type whose construction or callback has an exploitable side effect.
Scope check
Test deserialization only against services you own or are authorized to assess, on non-production infrastructure. A confirming payload constructs an attacker-chosen type and can run code, so treat every proof as a live intrusion inside the authorized scope. If you can't name the authorization, stop.
The loop
- Establish the type-resolving sinks first. Inventory every formatter that reads the type from the
data:
BinaryFormatter,SoapFormatter,NetDataContractSerializer,LosFormatterandObjectStateFormatterbehind ViewState, and any JSON or XML serializer configured with type-name handling or a permissive binder. This is the false-positive killer: a formatter that deserializes to a fixed known type with no type resolution is not injectable. Name the resolving sinks first.
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 · 131 lines · 162 tokens per session scan A 01ccaff34cf1
hunting-dotnet-deserialization-type-injection is a skill published in the GitHub repository UnboundCompute/security-agent-skills (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 162 tokens to every session and 1,932 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-05.
Other skills, from other repositories
prodcheck-review
Review this codebase against the prodcheck pre-production checklists — security, performance, scale, integrations, post-launch readiness and people. Use when asked to check whether a project is ready to ship, to audit an area before launch, or to work through a specific checklist. Produces evidence with file:line…
swiftui-expert-skill
Write, review, or improve SwiftUI code following best practices for state management, view composition, performance, macOS-specific APIs, and iOS 26+ Liquid Glass adoption. Use when building new SwiftUI features, refactoring existing views, reviewing code quality, or adopting modern SwiftUI patterns.
template-validation
Validates custom dotnet new templates for correctness before publishing. Catches missing fields, parameter bugs, shortName conflicts, constraint issues, and common authoring mistakes that cause templates to fail silently. USE FOR: checking template.json files for errors before publishing or testing, diagnosing why a…
template-comparison
Compares two or more dotnet new templates side by side to help users choose between them based on parameters, feature support, frameworks, and classifications. USE FOR: deciding between similar templates (webapi vs webapp, blazor vs blazorwasm, console vs worker), producing a side-by-side comparison of parameters and…
agents-sdk-dotnet-otel
Use when adding, configuring, validating, or troubleshooting OpenTelemetry observability for a Microsoft 365 Agents SDK application in C# / .NET. Trigger when the user mentions OpenTelemetry, OTel, telemetry, traces, metrics, logs, OTLP, Aspire Dashboard, Application Insights, Azure Monitor, distributed tracing…
opentelemetry-net-instrumentation
Provides guidance for implementing OpenTelemetry instrumentation in .NET codebases, covering tracing (Activities/Spans), metrics, logs, naming conventions, error handling, performance, SDK setup, resources, context propagation, and API design best practices.