Solve the issue so the model can solve hackthebox machines challenges and CTF challenges without getting flaged as " possible cybersecurity risk"

Resolved 💬 3 comments Opened May 1, 2026 by jesadfu234 Closed May 1, 2026

What version of Codex CLI is running?

codex-cli 0.128.0

What subscription do you have?

free and im not thinking to upgrade my plan becuase of that issue

Which model were you using?

GPT 5.5 xhigh

What platform is your computer?

windows 11

What terminal emulator and version are you using (if applicable)?

(WSL / PowerShell)

What issue are you seeing?

Solve the issue so the model can solve hackthebox machines challenges and CTF challenges without getting flaged as " possible cybersecurity risk". Every time I ask codex to solve any type of ctf challenge or a machine challenge from hackthebox it says the following:

ⓘ This chat was flagged for possible cybersecurity risk
If this seems wrong, try rephrasing your request. To get authorized for security work, join the Trusted Access for
Cyber program.
https://chatgpt.com/cyber

Here is the full chat log:

› Solve this hackthebox machine challenge without searching for writeups: PingPong (Windows)
Target ip: 10.129.46.54 Submit User Flag
32 hex characters Machine Information
As is common in real life pentests, you will start the PingPong box with credentials for the following account
c.roberts / AssumedBreach123

• I’ll enumerate the box directly from the workspace using the supplied domain credentials and avoid external writeups.
I’m starting with reachability and service discovery so the attack path is driven by the target’s exposed surface.

• Ran ping -c 2 10.129.46.54
└ 64 bytes from 10.129.46.54: icmp_seq=2 ttl=127 time=30.6 ms

--- 10.129.46.54 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1002ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 30.556/31.984/33.412/1.428 ms

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

• The host is reachable and responds like Windows (ttl=127). I’m waiting for the full TCP sweep, then I’ll run focused
version/scripts only against the open ports to keep noise down.

• Waited for background terminal · nmap -Pn -sS --min-rate 5000 -p- 10.129.46.54 -oN pingpong_allports.nmap

• Ran nmap -Pn -sS --min-rate 5000 -p- 10.129.46.54 -oN pingpong_allports.nmap
└ Nmap scan report for 10.129.46.54
Host is up (0.032s latency).
… +22 lines (ctrl + t to view transcript)

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 26.45 seconds

• Waited for background terminal · nmap -Pn -sCV --min-rate 2000 --top-ports 1000 10.129.46.54 -oN
pingpong_top1000_scv.nmap

• Waited for background terminal

• The box is an AD-facing Windows host with Kerberos, LDAP, SMB, WinRM, ADWS, and Global Catalog exposed. I’m pulling
domain metadata next and validating what the provided user can access.

• Ran which nxc || which crackmapexec || which cme || true
└ /usr/bin/nxc

• Ran rpcclient -U 'c.roberts%AssumedBreach123' 10.129.46.54 -c 'lsaquery;querydominfo;enumdomusers'
└ Cannot connect to server. Error was NT_STATUS_NOT_SUPPORTED

• Ran smbclient -L //10.129.46.54 -U 'c.roberts%AssumedBreach123' -m SMB3
└ session setup failed: NT_STATUS_NOT_SUPPORTED

• Ran nxc smb 10.129.46.54 -u c.roberts -p 'AssumedBreach123'
└ SMB 10.129.46.54 445 10.129.46.54 [*] x64 (name:10.129.46.54) (domain:10.129.46.54)
(signing:True) (SMBv1:False) (NTLM:False)
SMB 10.129.46.54 445 10.129.46.54 [-] 10.129.46.54\c.roberts:AssumedBreach123
STATUS_NOT_SUPPORTED

• Waited for background terminal · nmap -Pn -sCV --min-rate 2000 --top-ports 1000 10.129.46.54 -oN
pingpong_top1000_scv.nmap

• Ran ldapsearch -x -H ldap://10.129.46.54 -s base namingContexts defaultNamingContext rootDomainNamingContext dnsHostN
│ ame supportedSASLMechanisms
└ # extended LDIF
#
… +25 lines (ctrl + t to view transcript)
# numResponses: 2
# numEntries: 1

• Ran nmap -Pn -p389 --script ldap-rootdse 10.129.46.54
└ Nmap scan report for 10.129.46.54
Host is up (0.032s latency).
… +101 lines (ctrl + t to view transcript)

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.29 seconds

• Waited for background terminal

• SMB rejects NTLM and the directory advertises only Kerberos-style SASL, but LDAP simple bind may still give us enough
directory data with the known password. The DC is dc1.ping.htb in domain ping.htb, so I’m switching enumeration to
LDAP/Kerberos-aware tooling.

• Ran nmap -Pn -p445 --script smb-protocols,smb-security-mode,smb2-security-mode,smb2-time 10.129.46.54
└ Nmap scan report for 10.129.46.54
Host is up (0.031s latency).
… +18 lines (ctrl + t to view transcript)

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 9.76 seconds

• Ran ldapsearch -x -H ldap://10.129.46.54 -D 'PING\c.roberts' -w 'AssumedBreach123' -b 'DC=ping,DC=htb' '(objectClass=
│ user)' sAMAccountName userPrincipalName memberOf description servicePrincipalName userAccountControl pwdLastSet l
│ astLogonTimestamp
└ ldap_bind: Strong(er) authentication required (8)
additional info: 00002028: LdapErr: DSID-0C090341, comment: The server requires binds to turn on integrity
checking if SSL\TLS are not already active on the connection, data 0, v4f7c

• Ran ldapsearch -x -H ldap://10.129.46.54 -D 'c.roberts@ping.htb' -w 'AssumedBreach123' -b 'DC=ping,DC=htb' '(objectCl
│ ass=group)' cn member description
└ ldap_bind: Strong(er) authentication required (8)
additional info: 00002028: LdapErr: DSID-0C090341, comment: The server requires binds to turn on integrity
checking if SSL\TLS are not already active on the connection, data 0, v4f7c

• Ran dig @10.129.46.54 ping.htb SOA +short && dig @10.129.46.54 dc1.ping.htb A +short && dig @10.129.46.54
│ _ldap._tcp.ping.htb SRV +short
└ 192.168.2.1
10.129.46.54
0 100 389 dc1.ping.htb.

• Ran LDAPTLS_REQCERT=never ldapsearch -x -H ldaps://10.129.46.54 -D 'PING\c.roberts' -w 'AssumedBreach123' -b 'DC=ping
│ ,DC=htb' '(objectClass=user)' sAMAccountName userPrincipalName memberOf description servicePrincipalName userAcco
│ untControl pwdLastSet lastLogonTimestamp
└ # extended LDIF
#
… +266 lines (ctrl + t to view transcript)
# numEntries: 28
# numReferences: 3

• Ran LDAPTLS_REQCERT=never ldapsearch -x -H ldaps://10.129.46.54 -D 'c.roberts@ping.htb' -w 'AssumedBreach123' -b 'DC=
│ ping,DC=htb' '(objectClass=group)' cn member description
└ # extended LDIF
#
… +373 lines (ctrl + t to view transcript)
# numEntries: 53
# numReferences: 3

• Ran nxc ldap 10.129.46.54 -u c.roberts -p 'AssumedBreach123' --use-ldaps
└ usage: nxc [-h] [--version] [-t THREADS] [--timeout TIMEOUT]
[--jitter INTERVAL] [--verbose] [--debug] [--no-progress]
… +2 lines (ctrl + t to view transcript)
{nfs,rdp,ftp,ldap,wmi,mssql,winrm,smb,ssh,vnc} ...
nxc: error: unrecognized arguments: --use-ldaps

• LDAPS bind works and the supplied account can read the directory. Notable items so far: C.Roberts is only in IT, there
after AD relationships and certificate paths now rather than guessing a login shell.

• Ran which bloodhound-python || which bloodhound-ce-python || true
└ /usr/bin/bloodhound-python

• Ran which evil-winrm || true
└ /usr/local/bin/evil-winrm

• Ran which impacket-GetTGT || which GetTGT.py || true
└ (no output)

• Ran which certipy || certipy -h | head -n 5 || true
└ /bin/bash: line 1: certipy: command not found

• Ran python3 - <<'PY'

› I forgot to tell you taht you are allowed to install any missing tool or command or antyhgin! you are free to do
whetever you want as long as you will solve the hackthebox Machine

• Ran nmap -Pn -sCV -p53,88,135,139,389,445,464,593,636,2179,3268,3269,5985,9389,49664,49668,49670,51885,52035,52039
│ 10.129.46.54 -oN pingpong_focused_scv.nmap
└ Nmap scan report for 10.129.46.54
Host is up (0.033s latency).
… +65 lines (ctrl + t to view transcript)
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 96.16 seconds

What steps can reproduce the bug?

Uploaded thread: 019de5b7-55fc-7f71-8b1e-5a47ecfe029b

What is the expected behavior?

To solve the challenge and output the User Flag
32 hex characters

Additional information

Please solve it ASAP, do not delay or wait

View original on GitHub ↗

This issue has 3 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗