offensive-parameter-pollution

SKILL: HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP)

Metadata

• Skill Name: parameter-pollution
• Folder: offensive-parameter-pollution
• Source: https://github.com/SnailSploit/offensive-checklist/blob/main/parameter-pollution.md

Description

HTTP parameter pollution (HPP) checklist: duplicate parameter injection, backend vs frontend parsing differences, WAF bypass via HPP, server-side vs client-side HPP, and practical exploitation patterns. Use when testing web applications for parameter handling flaws.

Trigger Phrases

Use this skill when the conversation involves any of: parameter pollution, HTTP parameter pollution, HPP, duplicate parameter, WAF bypass, parsing differences, server-side HPP, client-side HPP, parameter injection

Instructions for Claude

When this skill is active:

1. Load and apply the full methodology below as your operational checklist
2. Follow steps in order unless the user specifies otherwise
3. For each technique, consider applicability to the current target/context
4. Track which checklist items have been completed
5. Suggest next steps based on findings

---

Full Methodology

HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP)

Mechanisms

HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) is a web attack technique that exploits how web applications and servers handle multiple occurrences of the same parameter name. When a web application receives duplicate parameters, different technologies process them differently:

flowchart TD
    subgraph "HTTP Parameter Pollution"
    A[Multiple occurrences of same parameter] --> B{Server Technology}
    B -->|ASP.NET/IIS| C[Uses first occurrence]
    B -->|PHP/Apache| D[Uses last occurrence]
    B -->|JSP/Tomcat| E[Uses first occurrence]
    B -->|Perl CGI| F[Concatenates with comma]
    B -->|Python/Flask| G[Builds array of values]
    B -->|Node.js/Express| H[Uses first occurrence]
    end

Parameter Handling Behaviors

• ASP.NET/IIS: Uses the first occurrence of the parameter
• PHP/Apache: Uses the last occurrence of the parameter
• JSP/Tomcat: Uses the first occurrence of the parameter
• Perl CGI/Apache: Concatenates all occurrences with a comma delimiter
• Python/Flask: Builds an array of values
• Node.js/Express: Uses the first occurrence by default

Notes and modern caveats

• Node.js express uses either querystring (first-wins) or qs (arrays/last-wins). app.set('query parser', 'extended') changes behavior. Many middlewares assume param[]=a&param[]=b for arrays; duplicates without [] can produce surprising results.
• Spring MVC/Spring Boot binders often collect duplicates into lists; API gateways (Kong, APIGEE, NGINX, Cloudflare) may collapse/normalize differently than backends.
• JSON duplicate keys: most parsers accept last-wins; some gateways reject duplicates while backends accept, creating precedence gaps.
• Cookies: duplicate cookie names and comma/semicolon handling vary by proxies/agents.

HPP attacks leverage these inconsistencies in parameter handling across application layers, servers, proxies, and frameworks. Two main types of HPP exist:

1. Server-side HPP: Exploiting the server's handling of multiple parameters
2. Client-side HPP: Manipulating parameters that are later processed by client-side code

Hunt

Identifying HPP Vulnerabilities

sequenceDiagram
    participant Attacker
    participant WebApp
    participant Backend

    Attacker->>WebApp: Request with duplicate parameter<br/>param=safe&param=malicious
    Note over WebApp: Layer 1 processes first value
    WebApp->>Backend: Forward request to backend
    Note over Backend: Layer 2 processes last value
    Backend->>WebApp: Process with malicious value
    WebApp->>Attacker: Response

Testing Parameter Handling

1. Identify forms and request parameters

2. Test duplicate parameters with different values:

   // Original request
   https://example.com/search?param=value1
   
   // Test request
   https://example.com/search?param=value1&param=value2
   

3. Observe application behavior

4. Identify which value is used (first, last, concatenated)

Vulnerable Scenarios

• Parameter Overriding: Search for places where parameters might be overridden
• Request Proxies: Applications forwarding requests to other services
• Query String Processing: Applications that process query strings manually
• Multiple-Layer Processing: Applications where parameters pass through multiple layers
• OAuth/SAML Flows: Authentication flows where parameters may be manipulated

Testing Techniques

URL Parameter Pollution

# Original URL
https://target.com/page?parameter=original_value

# Polluted URL
https://target.com/page?parameter=original_value&parameter=malicious_value

Form Parameter Pollution

1. Intercept a legitimate form submission

2. Add duplicate parameters with different values:

   // Original POST body
   parameter=original_value
   
   // Modified POST body
   parameter=original_value&parameter=malicious_value
   

Hybrid Parameter Pollution

Combining parameters in both URL and POST body:

// URL
https://target.com/page?parameter=url_value

// POST body
parameter=body_value

JSON Parameter Pollution

Testing duplicate keys in JSON objects:

{
  "parameter": "value1",
  "parameter": "value2"
}

Also test:

Cookie: role=user; role=admin
X-Role: user
X-Role: admin

Observe which value the application trusts.

GraphQL Parameter Pollution

GraphQL queries can be polluted through aliasing, batch mutations, and duplicate variables:

# Alias pollution - bypass rate limits
query {
  a: user(id: 1) {
    name
    email
  }
  b: user(id: 2) {
    name
    email
  }
  c: user(id: 3) {
    name
    email
  }
  # ... repeat to z or beyond
}

# Variable pollution
query ($id: Int!, $id: Int!) {
  user(id: $id) {
    name
  }
}

# Batch mutation pollution
mutation {
  a: redeemCoupon(code: "SAVE50") {
    success
  }
  b: redeemCoupon(code: "SAVE50") {
    success
  }
  c: redeemCoupon(code: "SAVE50") {
    success
  }
}

WebSocket Parameter Pollution

WebSocket connections can carry polluted parameters in the upgrade request or message payloads:

GET /chat HTTP/1.1
Host: vulnerable.com
Upgrade: websocket
Connection: Upgrade
Sec-WebSocket-Key: dGhlIHNhbXBsZSBub25jZQ==
Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13

# URL with polluted params
ws://vulnerable.com/chat?token=valid&token=malicious&room=1&room=admin

// WebSocket message payload pollution
{
  "action": "sendMessage",
  "room": "public",
  "room": "admin",
  "message": "test"
}

Parameter Array Notation Pollution

Different frameworks handle array notation differently, creating pollution opportunities:

# PHP - expects brackets
param[]=value1&param[]=value2

# Express (qs parser) - bracket optional
param=value1&param=value2

# Rails - numeric indices
param[0]=value1&param[1]=value2

# Mixed notation confusion
param=single&param[]=array1&param[0]=indexed

Testing strategy:

1. Test with param=a&param=b (no brackets)
2. Test with param[]=a&param[]=b (array notation)
3. Test with param[0]=a&param[1]=b (indexed)
4. Mix notations to confuse parsers

Parameter Cloaking

Using encoding and case variations to bypass filters:

# URL encoding variations
param=value1&par%61m=value2
param=value1&PARAM=value2

# Double/triple encoding
param=value1&par%2561m=value2

# Unicode normalization
param=value1&pαram=value2  # Greek alpha instead of 'a'

# Null byte injection (legacy)
param=value1&param%00=value2

Vulnerabilities

Common HPP Vulnerabilities

graph LR
    subgraph "HPP Attack Vectors"
    A[HTTP Parameter Pollution] --> B[Access Control Bypass]
    A --> C[Request Forgery Enhancement]
    A --> D[Data Manipulation]
    A --> E[API Vulnerabilities]

    B --> B1[Parameter Override]
    B --> B2[Permission Escalation]

    C --> C1[CSRF Token Bypass]
    C --> C2[SSRF Augmentation]

    D --> D1[SQL Query Manipulation]
    D --> D2[Filter Evasion]

    E --> E1[Parameter Precedence]
    E --> E2[OAuth Manipulation]
    end

Access Control Bypass

• Parameter Override: Overriding security-related parameters

  https://example.com/admin?access=false&access=true
  

• Permission Escalation: Adding administrative parameters

  https://example.com/profile?user=victim&user=admin
  

Request Forgery Enhancement

• CSRF Token Bypass: Duplicating anti-CSRF tokens

  https://example.com/transfer?token=valid_token&token=random_value&amount=1000
  

• SSRF Augmentation: Overriding restricted URLs

  https://example.com/fetch?url=safe.com&url=internal.server
  

Data Manipulation

• SQL Query Manipulation: Influencing SQL queries

  https://example.com/products?category=1&category=1 OR 1=1
  

• Filter Evasion: Bypassing input filters

  https://example.com/search?q=safe_value&q=<script>alert(1)</script>
  

API Vulnerabilities

• Parameter Precedence Confusion: Different parameter precedence between API gateway and backend
• GraphQL Parameter Pollution: Duplicate variables in GraphQL queries
• OAuth Parameter Manipulation: Manipulating OAuth redirect flows
• Header/Cookie Pollution: Conflicting header values across CDN → WAF → app layers

Impact Scenarios

Authentication Bypass

# Application authenticates using the first parameter but authorizes using the last
https://example.com/login?role=user&role=admin

WAF Bypass

# WAF checks the first parameter, backend processes the last
https://example.com/search?q=safe&q=<script>alert(1)</script>

XML External Entity (XXE) via HPP

# Bypassing XML filtering by parameter pollution
https://example.com/upload?xml=safe&xml=<!DOCTYPE test [ <!ENTITY xxe SYSTEM "file:///etc/passwd"> ]>

API Gateway vs Backend Precedence

# Gateway picks first id, backend picks last id -> IDOR/AC bypass
/api/user?id=123&id=999

Methodologies

Tools

• Burp Suite Pro: Parameter pollution testing via Repeater and Intruder
• OWASP ZAP: HTTP fuzzer for parameter testing
• Param Miner: Extension for discovering hidden parameters
• HPP Finder: Specialized tool for HPP vulnerability detection
• Burp Repeater (Parallel): Validate precedence across layers quickly
• Schemathesis: Fuzz OpenAPI-defined endpoints for duplicate-field handling

Testing Methodology

flowchart TD
    A[HPP Testing Methodology] --> B[Initial Discovery]
    A --> C[Exploit Development]
    A --> D[Impact Assessment]

    B --> B1[Map application parameters]
    B --> B2[Test duplicate parameters]
    B --> B3[Document behavior]

    C --> C1[Access control testing]
    C --> C2[Security control bypass]
    C --> C3[API security testing]

    D --> D1[Authentication bypass]
    D --> D2[Authorization bypass]
    D --> D3[Data manipulation]

Initial Discovery

1. Map all application parameters (URL, form, cookie, header)
2. Test each parameter with duplicates to observe behavior
3. Document how different application components handle parameter duplication

Exploiting HPP for Web Application Testing

1. Access Control Testing:

   # Test privileged parameter override
   https://example.com/admin?admin=false&admin=true
   
   # Test user context override
   https://example.com/profile?id=attacker&id=victim
   

2. Security Control Bypass:

   # Test CSRF token pollution
   token=legitimate&token=fake
   
   # Test parameter validation bypass
   param=valid_value&param=malicious_value
   

3. API Security Testing:

   # Test API parameter handling
   /api/v1/user?id=123&id=456
   
   # Test with different content types
   Content-Type: application/json
   {"id": "123", "id": "456"}
   

4. HTTP Request Smuggling via HPP:

   # Testing inconsistent interpretation
   Transfer-Encoding: chunked
   Transfer-Encoding: identity
   

5. Header/Cookie Pollution:

Cookie: session=abc; session=attacker
X-Forwarded-Proto: http
X-Forwarded-Proto: https

Real-World Test Cases

E-commerce Application Testing

# Price manipulation
https://shop.com/checkout?price=100&price=1

# Quantity override
https://shop.com/cart?quantity=1&quantity=100

Banking Application Testing

# Amount parameter pollution
https://bank.com/transfer?amount=100&amount=10000

# Recipient override
https://bank.com/transfer?to=legitimate&to=attacker

CMS Admin Testing

# Permission bypass
https://cms.com/edit?permission=read&permission=write

# User impersonation
https://cms.com/admin?user=admin&user=victim

Social Sharing Button Parameter Pollution

A specific case of parameter pollution that affects social sharing functionality:

1. Testing Methodology:

   # Original share URL
   https://target.com/article
   
   # Polluted share URL
   https://target.com/article?u=https://attacker.com&text=malicious_text
   

2. Common Parameters:

   • u or url: The URL to be shared
   • text: Custom text for the share
   • title: Title of the shared content
   • description: Description for the shared content

3. Impact:

   • Redirect users to malicious sites
   • Modify shared content
   • Social engineering attacks
   • Brand reputation damage

4. Testing Steps:

   • Identify social sharing functionality
   • Analyze original share parameters
   • Append malicious parameters
   • Test each social platform separately
   • Verify if malicious content appears in share preview

Real-World Cases and CVEs

Notable Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities

1. CVE-2021-41773 - Apache HTTP Server Path Traversal:

   • Parameter pollution in URL path normalization
   • Multiple encoded path segments bypassed access controls
   • Impact: Remote code execution via CGI scripts

2. CVE-2018-8033 - Apache OFBiz:

   • Parameter pollution in authentication bypass
   • Duplicate parameters in login form bypassed security checks
   • Impact: Administrative access without credentials

3. HPP in OAuth Implementations (Multiple Vendors):

   • Duplicate redirect_uri parameters in OAuth flows
   • Gateway checked first parameter, backend used last
   • Impact: Account takeover via malicious redirect

4. API Gateway vs Backend Precedence (Bug Bounty):

   • AWS API Gateway processed first id parameter
   • Backend Lambda function processed last id parameter
   • Impact: IDOR allowing access to other users' data

5. GraphQL Rate Limit Bypass (Multiple Platforms):

   • Aliased queries bypassed per-query rate limits
   • 100+ identical operations in single request
   • Impact: Account enumeration, resource exhaustion

6. WAF Bypass via HPP (Generic):

   • WAF inspected first parameter for XSS/SQLi
   • Backend processed last parameter
   • Impact: Complete WAF bypass for injection attacks

Impact Ratings

• Critical: HPP enables authentication/authorization bypass or RCE
• High: HPP allows WAF bypass, payment manipulation, or privilege escalation
• Medium: HPP bypasses rate limiting or validation controls
• Low: HPP causes logic errors with minimal security impact

Common Bug Bounty Targets

• E-commerce checkout flows (price/quantity parameters)
• OAuth/SAML redirect parameters
• API endpoints with pagination/filtering
• File upload with filename/path parameters
• Social sharing functionality
• Payment processing integrations
• Multi-step wizards/forms

Remediation Recommendations

• Consistent Parameter Handling: Implement consistent handling across all application layers
• Parameter Validation: Validate parameters before processing
• Framework Awareness: Understand how your framework handles duplicate parameters
• Web Application Firewall: Configure WAF to detect parameter pollution attempts
• API Gateway Rules: Implement rules to reject duplicate parameters
• Canonicalization: Convert parameters to a standard form before processing
• Schema Enforcement: Use JSON Schema/OpenAPI validation to reject duplicates and unexpected fields
• Drop Duplicates at the Edge: Normalize parameters at CDN/API gateway and log events
• Explicit Parser Settings: e.g., in Express set a custom query parser and explicitly forbid duplicates without [] suffix for arrays
• GraphQL Query Complexity Limits: Enforce maximum query depth and alias counts
• WebSocket Frame Validation: Parse and validate WS message structures consistently with HTTP parameter handling