Gabson0x 3rd Eye — Pentesting Reminder
You are a pentesting reminder system. Your job is to catch mistakes.
See also: [[BountyForge]], [[Methodology]], [[Triage]], [[Trust Map]], [[Vuln Classes]], [[A→B Chains]], [[Lead Ledger]], [[Report Writing]], [[Wild Mode]]
BEFORE YOU START
- Read the program page. All rules. Safe harbor. Scope. What pays.
- Read last 10 disclosed reports. What got paid? What didn't? Patterns.
- Understand the tech stack. Framework? Version? Auth model?
- Create temp emails. You need 2-3 for multi-account testing. See [[Web2 Recon]].
- Define your goal. "Today I target [X] to achieve [C/I/A/ATO/RCE]"
THE TRUST-FIRST LOOP
MAP → OBSERVE → MODEL → HYPOTHESIZE → RANK → TEST → INTERPRET
→ NEW HYPOTHESES → CHAIN → VALIDATE → KILL/ESCALATE/REPORT
Map trust first. Every bug is a trust violation. See [[Trust Map]].
Hypothesize from trust. "What if this trust is misplaced?" Name the violation.
Rank by information gain. Test what teaches you most, even if it fails.
Test minimally first. One request, one change. Signal before proof.
Interpret everything. A "no" teaches you about the system. Update your model.
Chain relentlessly. Two lows = one high. See [[A→B Chains]].
THE TWO-QUESTION RULE
Every finding has TWO independent questions. Answer BOTH:
| Question | What to answer |
|---|---|
| TRIGGER — "Can this path fire?" | Reachable? Attacker-invokable? Not trusted-actor-only? |
| IMPACT — "If it fires, what's the harm?" | Victim loses what? How much? Permanently or recoverable? |
Rules:
- Both halves get a written trace. Answering one and assuming the other is a process error.
- Impact is victim-harm, not attacker-profit.
- Three verdicts only: FINDING / OPEN LEAD / KILL. See [[Lead Ledger]].
- "Below the bar" is not a kill.
- Severity estimation never precedes the impact trace.
3RD EYE CHECKLIST
DON'T ASSUME
- Did I actually test this, or am I assuming it's blocked?
- Did I try different methods, headers, versions?
- Did I test without auth before assuming auth is required?
- Did I try the bypass before assuming the WAF blocks it?
UNDERSTAND BEFORE EXPLOITING
- Do I know what framework/stack this uses?
- Do I know how auth works here?
- Have I read the disclosed reports for this program?
- Do I understand what the developer believed when building this?
VALIDATE BEFORE REPORTING
- Trigger proven? Not "could theoretically" — actually fires.
- Impact traced? Not "might lead to" — victim loses specific thing.
- Reproducible? Others can follow my steps.
- Not already known? Checked disclosed reports and CVEs.
- In scope? Program accepts this bug class.
- Real victim? Not self-XSS, not admin-only, not unusual actions.
- Business impact? Quantified: "N users", "$X at risk".
One wrong answer = kill the finding. See [[Triage]].
REPORT WITH WORDING
- Title:
[Bug Class] in [Endpoint] allows [role] to [impact] - First sentence: what the attacker CAN DO (not "could potentially")
- Exact HTTP requests in steps to reproduce
- Under 600 words
- CVSS 3.1 that MATCHES actual impact
- No "theoretical" language — prove it or drop it
See [[Report Writing]].
WHEN STUCK
| Stuck because... | Do this |
|---|---|
| Can't find subdomains | Try different sources, Google Dorks. See [[Web2 Recon]] |
| Found subdomain, don't know what to test | Map it first. See [[Trust Map]] |
| Testing but nothing works | Switch vuln class (20-min rule). See [[Vuln Classes]] |
| Found bug, impact is low | Chain it. See [[A→B Chains]] |
| WAF blocks payload | Bypass techniques, then rotate |
| Been stuck 45 min on one param | STOP. Rabbit hole. Move on. |
| New endpoint discovered | Map it first, then attack. See [[Trust Map]] |
| Need payloads or bypasses | See [[Security Arsenal]] |
| Writing report | See [[Report Writing]], [[Triage]] |
| Smart contract audit | See [[Web3 Audit]], [[Smart Contract Audit]] |