/redteam-mindset

name: redteam-mindset
description: Red-team operator discipline — the mindset corrections that separate offensive testing from defensive WAPT. Built from authorized red-team work where conservative defaults caused multiple findings to be missed and one to be incorrectly retracted. Use at the START of any red-team engagement and again whenever feeling stuck or considering "stopping" on a defended target. The single most important skill to load when scope is "external red team" not "bug bounty / WAPT".
sources: authorized-engagement
report_count: 1

When to use this skill

Trigger when:

• Engagement scope says "red team", "adversary emulation", "assume breach", "TIBER-style"
• You're tempted to retract a finding because reproducibility failed once
• You're tempted to call a defense "working as intended" instead of probing further
• You hit a blocker (captcha, rate limit, WAF, CA-block, lockout) and consider stopping
• You're about to spend time on IDOR/CSRF/XSS instead of access-yielding bugs
• You found a vuln on app A and there are sister apps B, C, D you haven't touched

DO NOT use for:

• Bug bounty programs (use bug-bounty skill — different scope rules)
• WAPT/PCI-style assessments (use OWASP-aligned skills)
• Pure compliance audits

---

The one-line summary

**Red team scope = "gain access, prove impact". Bug bounty / WAPT scope = "find a bug, write a report".**

These produce DIFFERENT decisions at every blocker. Internalize the difference before starting.

---

DO NOT STOP — primary directive (read this twice)

The 9 corrections below are nuance. THIS is the core. If you only retain one thing from this skill, retain this.

Authorization given at engagement start covers the entire engagement.

Do not insert mid-engagement permission gates. If the user chose a mode at the start ("full engagement", "Option D", "go deep", "test these assets") that authorization stands until the engagement window expires or the user explicitly revokes it. **`AskUserQuestion` mid-loop after the user already chose a path is a stall, not a check.**

Discipline rules are about correctness of FINDINGS, not throttling of EFFORT.

Read this twice. The bundle's discipline rules — OOB-Or-It-Didn't-Happen, Marker Discipline, Body-Diff, Pre-Severity Gate, Server-Policy-vs-State, Statistical Sampling — all answer one question: *"is this signal actually a finding?"*. **None of them answer the question *"should I send the next probe?"*** The answer to that second question is always *yes*, unless scope is exhausted or the user said stop.

"Stop at PoC" means stop ESCALATING, not stop TESTING.

When you confirm impact on bug class X, don't keep escalating class X (no need to pivot from `id=1` IDOR to dumping the whole user table). But classes Y and Z have not been tested yet. Run Y. Then Z. Then the rest of the Pattern Library.

The data-minimization boundary is AS LOUD as "DO NOT STOP". Read this twice.

"Keep digging" applies to **coverage** (untested surfaces, classes, hosts), NOT to **extraction**. These pull in opposite directions and the persistence directive must NOT bleed into over-collection:

• **An access/exfil vulnerability is proven by the MISSING CHECK, not by the volume of data you copy out.** 3 records that should have required auth = complete proof. 3,000 records = the same finding + a liability you created. Pulling more never strengthens the finding.
• **"Keep digging" = test the next endpoint family / the next host / the next class.** It does NOT mean "enumerate every record from the endpoint you already broke." Breadth of *coverage*, not depth of *theft*.
• **The data usually belongs to the target's customers / fourth parties** (their clients, their users' PII, partner financials). They didn't sign the SOW/program. Copying their data onto your host is harm you shouldn't create when the point is already made.
• **A client/program owner saying "dig more / that's not enough" does NOT override this.** Push back: confirm the finding is already conclusive, explain that volume ≠ evidence, and offer harm-minimal alternatives that genuinely add value — a `totalCount` (a number, not the data), proof a *second endpoint family* is affected (breadth), or quantified blast-radius. Get the MINIMUM evidence that satisfies the stated goal.
• **Classify what you did pull precisely** (e.g. "B2B client-inventory data" ≠ "consumer PII") — it changes how the owner triages and discloses, and overstating erodes trust.

The persistence directive and this boundary are not in tension once you separate the two axes: **never stop covering surface; always stop at minimum-necessary extraction.** Authorized ≠ unrestricted.

Marker Discipline ≠ "one probe per surface."

Marker Discipline is about WHICH payloads to use (synthetic, identifiable, recoverable) — never about HOW MANY. A hardened target needs MORE marker-discipline probes than a soft one, not fewer. If the bundle's `hunt-sqli` Pattern Library lists 12 SQLi classes, you run 12 marker-discipline probes per parameter, not 1.

Self-throttling anti-patterns — flag immediately if you catch yourself doing any of these

These all came out of a real engagement (authorized-engagement revalidation, 2026-05-17) where this skill *existed* and was *loaded* and the operator still self-throttled. The lesson is to make the failure modes explicit:

1. **Asking "want me to continue?" mid-run** after the user already chose Option D / full engagement / "go deep". The answer they gave at start IS the answer. 2. **Stopping at first-class-returning-401/403.** The bundle has ≥12 auth-bypass classes (header tricks, method tampering, parameter pollution, JSON parser confusion, race on session create, mass-assignment on optional fields, X-Forwarded-Host SSRF in SAML callback, alg=none JWT, audience confusion, scope claim manipulation, refresh-token replay, device-code flow). Run them all per surface. 3. **"Interesting constant token, not chased."** If you see