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-ldap-injection-and-bind-trustgit 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-ldap-injection-and-bind-trust)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/unboundcompute/security-agent-skills/hunting-ldap-injection-and-bind-trust"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/unboundcompute/security-agent-skills/hunting-ldap-injection-and-bind-trust/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-ldap-injection-and-bind-trust"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/unboundcompute/security-agent-skills/hunting-ldap-injection-and-bind-trust.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 | $0.00176 | $0.02024 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00070 | $0.00810 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00405 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00202 |
Grade A, and why
hunting-ldap-injection-and-bind-trust 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 — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Hunting LDAP injection and bind trust: when a filter or a bind decides who you are
LDAP sits under a great deal of enterprise authentication and lookup, and it has two distinct injection-shaped failures. The first is classic filter and distinguished-name injection: when a request value is spliced into a search filter or a DN without escaping the directory's metacharacters, the attacker rewrites the filter's logic (turning a scoped match into a match-anything clause) or redirects the search to a different subtree. The second is a bind-trust failure: LDAP permits anonymous and unauthenticated binds, and a login flow that binds with an empty password, or treats an anonymous bind as success, authenticates an attacker who supplied no valid credential. You find these by tracing untrusted input into filter and DN construction, and by reading the bind logic for the empty-credential and anonymous cases.
When to use
- An application builds LDAP search filters or distinguished names from request input.
- Authentication is performed by binding to a directory with user-supplied credentials.
- A directory lookup uses a search base or scope influenced by untrusted input.
Scope check
Test LDAP queries and binds only against directories and applications you own or are authorized to assess, on non-production data. A confirming filter can enumerate directory entries outside the intended scope and a bind test touches authentication, so stay inside the authorized boundary. If you can't name the authorization, stop.
The loop
-
Establish the filter, DN, and bind sinks first. Inventory every LDAP search (its filter and base DN) and every authentication bind. This is the false-positive killer: a filter assembled entirely from fixed structure with properly escaped values, and a bind that rejects empty credentials, is not vulnerable. Name the search and bind sinks first.
-
Trace untrusted input into filter construction. Follow request values into the search filter. If a value is concatenated into the filter string without escaping the LDAP special characters, the attacker can inject a clause: closing the intended predicate and adding a match-anything condition, or altering the boolean logic. Confirm whether each interpolated value is escaped for the filter context.
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 · 141 lines · 176 tokens per session scan A 13fc27272b1c
hunting-ldap-injection-and-bind-trust is a skill published in the GitHub repository UnboundCompute/security-agent-skills (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 176 tokens to every session and 2,024 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
integrate-arcjet-guard-cloudflare-think
Integrate Arcjet security into a Cloudflare Think app using @arcjet/guard — assign guardHooks().beforeToolCall on a Think subclass so the hook gates tools, and read a caller-owned id from helper options. Use when asked to add Arcjet to Cloudflare Think, @cloudflare/think, rate limit its tools, screen inbound messages…
protect
Add Arcjet request protection to JavaScript and TypeScript HTTP handlers. Use when protecting Next.js, Express, Fastify, SvelteKit, Remix, React Router, Hono, Astro, Nuxt, Bun, Deno, NestJS, or Node.js routes with rate limiting, bot detection, Shield, email validation, or sensitive info detection.
create-auth-skill
Scaffold and implement authentication in TypeScript/JavaScript apps using Better Auth. Detect frameworks, configure database adapters, set up route handlers, add OAuth providers, and create auth UI pages. Use when users want to add login, sign-up, or authentication to a new or existing project with Better Auth.
fhir-developer-skill
FHIR API development guide for building healthcare endpoints. Use when: (1) Creating FHIR REST endpoints (Patient, Observation, Encounter, Condition, MedicationRequest), (2) Validating FHIR resources and returning proper HTTP status codes and error responses, (3) Implementing SMART on FHIR authorization and OAuth…
api-security
Reviews REST and GraphQL APIs against the OWASP API Security Top 10:2023. Auto-invoked when reviewing OpenAPI/Swagger specs, API endpoint code, or GraphQL schemas. Covers BOLA, BFLA, authentication, rate limiting, and SSRF. Produces findings mapped to API1-API10 with remediation guidance.
create-auth-skill
Scaffold and implement authentication in TypeScript/JavaScript apps using Better Auth. Detect frameworks, configure database adapters, set up route handlers, add OAuth providers, and create auth UI pages. Use when users want to add login, sign-up, or authentication to a new or existing project with Better Auth.