AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Pwnote Offsec Web300

skill-pwnote-skills-pwnote-offsec-web300 · by Pwnote

Use whenever the user is working on Offsec's WEB-300 course/OSWE — whitebox source code review methodology, exploit chain documentation, PoC scripting, or OSWE exam report writing. Trigger on "OSWE", "WEB-300", "whitebox", "source code review" in a pentest context, or "exploit chain", even without the word "skill".

No reviews yet
0 installs
28 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-pwnote-skills-pwnote-offsec-web300

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-pwnote-skills-pwnote-offsec-web300)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
21d ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Pwnote Offsec Web300? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Offsec WEB-300 / OSWE Workflow

Reference for structuring a whitebox web application security review from source review through exploit chain PoC and exam-style report.

1. Source Review Workflow

Whitebox review is systematic, not exploratory — follow this order rather than jumping straight to a suspected sink:

  1. Entry point mapping — enumerate every externally-reachable route/controller/handler in the application; this is your complete attack surface inventory before you look for bugs
  2. Auth/session code paths — trace how authentication and authorization are enforced across those entry points; note any entry point where the check is inconsistent or missing relative to similar routes
  3. Data flow / taint tracing — for each entry point, trace user-controlled input from source (request parameter) to sink (DB query, file operation, template render, deserialization call, shell invocation, outbound request)
  4. Sink classification — group findings by sink type since remediation and exploitability differ significantly by sink class

Document this as a structured table block per entry point: route, input source, sinks reached, auth requirement, notes.

2. Exploit Chain Documentation

WEB-300 findings are frequently chains (e.g., an authenticated low-privilege bug combined with a logic flaw to reach unauthenticated RCE) rather than single-step bugs. Document chains as:

Step 1: [primitive gained] — [how]
Step 2: [primitive gained] — [how, building on step 1]
...
Final: [end impact]

Use a pwnote killchain board with each step as a node and edges showing the dependency between primitives — this is the same shape as an exploit-chain visualizer, so if a chain visualization tool is available, generate the chain diagram directly from this step list rather than re-deriving it.

3. PoC Scripting Conventions

Standard PoC skeleton shape for web exploit chains (language-agnostic structure, adapt to your usual scripting language):

1. Session/auth setup — obtain whatever starting credential/session the chain requires
2. Step functions — one function per chain step, each returning what the next step needs
3. Chain orchestration — calls steps in order, asserts expected intermediate state at each step
4. Final impact demonstration — the observable proof (e.g., file read contents, command output, admin action performed)
5. Output — clear pass/fail statement plus captured evidence

Keep each step function independently testable/re-runnable so a reviewer can verify any single link in the chain, not just the end-to-end run.

4. Report Format

OSWE reports differ from PEN-200 reports: heavier on code snippets and data-flow explanation, lighter on host-by-host screenshots.

1. Executive Summary
2. Vulnerability Summary Table
3. Methodology (source review approach used)
4. Findings — one per exploit chain
   4.x [Chain name]
     - Affected code (file/line references, snippet)
     - Data flow explanation (source → sink)
     - Exploit chain steps
     - PoC script / commands
     - Proof (flag/impact evidence)
     - Remediation (specific code-level fix, not generic advice)
5. Appendix

Include actual code snippets (the vulnerable lines) inline in the finding — this is expected and different from PEN-200 norms, where narrative + screenshots dominate.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.