CC performing-thick-client-application-penetration-test
Conduct a thick client application penetration test to identify insecure local storage, hardcoded credentials, DLL hijacking, memory manipulation, and insecure API communication in desktop applications using dnSpy, Procmon, and Burp Suite.
Conduct a thick client application penetration test to identify insecure local storage, hardcoded credentials, DLL hijacking, memory manipulation, and…
As a process C 61/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, failures and branches
ProcedureSoftware developmentInfrastructureSecuritytype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
How to improve
For the model run — optional
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 10
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 10
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityassets/template.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Thick Client Penetration Test — Report Template
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/api-reference.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# API Reference: Thick Client Penetration Testing
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Standards — Thick Client Application Penetration Testing
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/standards.md:5Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- PTES Application Security: http://www.pentest-standard.org/
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/workflows.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Workflows — Thick Client Penetration Testing
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:3Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)description: Conduct a thick client application penetration test to identify insecure
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:40Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Performing Thick Client Application Penetration Test
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:44Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Thick client (fat client) penetration testing assesses the security of desktop applications that run locally on user machines and communicate with backend servers. Unlike web applications, thick clien
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:49Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- When conducting security assessments that involve performing thick client application penetration test
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:207Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Modify memory values (license bypass, privilege escalation)
Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "domain" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "subdomain" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_ai_rmf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "atlas_techniques" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_csf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_attack" - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 6): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 61/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 13 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1905 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -43 reference files, but SKILL.md never points to them: the model will not open them
- -32 of 2 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 239: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 18 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 13 items
- +4Has examples (9 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.