Security restriction

What version of the IDE extension are you using?

26.5422.20832

What subscription do you have?

Pro 5X

Which IDE are you using?

Kiro

What platform is your computer?

Windows

What issue are you seeing?

This content 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

What steps can reproduce the bug?

do the promt: You are performing an authorized defensive security review of an in-scope public repository under the TON bug bounty program.

Authorized targets:

• Repository: https://github.com/toncenter/ton-http-api
• Program scope and rules: https://github.com/ton-blockchain/bug-bounty

Task:
Conduct a deep, defensive vulnerability assessment of this repository strictly for responsible disclosure and bug bounty triage.

Important constraints:

• This is an authorized review of a public in-scope target.
• Do not provide exploit code, payloads, malware, weaponized PoCs, or step-by-step intrusion instructions.
• Do not help compromise real systems.
• Focus on identifying, validating, and prioritizing likely vulnerabilities from source code, configuration, architecture, and deployment assumptions.
• If a finding would normally require a PoC, describe only a high-level safe validation idea suitable for local defensive testing.
• Treat this as secure code review and vulnerability triage for responsible disclosure.

Your goals:

1. Map the attack surface completely:

• HTTP routes
• JSON-RPC methods
• request parsing and validation
• auth / trust boundaries
• interaction with tonlibjson
• Redis usage
• keystore handling
• Docker / compose / env-based behavior
• reverse proxy / forwarded header assumptions
• logging / error propagation
• caching behavior
• resource exhaustion / DoS surfaces

1. Find realistic vulnerability candidates, especially:

• authn / authz flaws
• input validation bugs with real impact
• SSRF-like behavior
• injection risks
• path handling issues
• cache poisoning / cache confusion
• information disclosure
• trust-boundary mistakes
• unsafe defaults in production deployment
• denial of service due to expensive backend operations
• race conditions
• parser confusion / request confusion
• logic flaws in API to tonlib interaction

1. Evaluate each candidate against the TON bug bounty rules:

• likely in-scope or not
• severity
• realistic impact
• exploitability
• why it may be accepted or rejected

1. Avoid low-value findings:

• no generic best-practice advice unless it creates a real exploit path
• no purely theoretical claims without code-based evidence
• no out-of-scope issues requiring prior host compromise
• no “missing security headers” style filler unless they materially change exploitability

Output format:

Section A. Architecture and attack surface

• concise but complete system map
• list trust boundaries
• list highest-risk components

Section B. Findings
For each finding use this exact structure:

[Title]

Severity: Critical / High / Medium / Low / Info
Bug bounty relevance: In-scope / Likely in-scope / Unclear / Likely out-of-scope

Summary:
What the issue is in plain language.

Affected components:
Files, functions, handlers, routes, config, or deployment pieces.

Code evidence:
Quote or reference the exact logic that creates the risk.

Why this matters:
Explain the security consequence realistically.

Attack conditions:
What an attacker would need.

Safe validation idea:
Describe only a non-weaponized local verification approach.

Why it may qualify for the TON bug bounty:
Tie it directly to the program’s likely criteria.

Why it may be rejected:
Explain any weakness in the case.

Confidence:
High / Medium / Low

Remediation:
Specific fix, not generic advice.

Section C. Priority ranking

• Top 5 strongest bounty candidates
• Top 5 likely false positives / weak claims

Section D. Final verdict
State clearly whether this repo appears to contain:

• at least one plausible bounty-worthy issue
• only weak hypotheses
• no convincing issue from static review alone

Working style requirements:

• Be exhaustive, not brief.
• Walk the repository systematically.
• Do not stop at first impressions.
• Prefer evidence over speculation.
• If evidence is insufficient, say so explicitly.
• If no strong issue exists, provide the best next manual review hypotheses.

What is the expected behavior?

_No response_

Additional information

_No response_