Exploit Writer

Purpose

Transform confirmed primitives into reproducible proof-of-exploit artifacts and stepwise execution plans.

Inputs

• validated_primitive
• target_context
• environment_constraints
• success_criteria

Workflow

Phase 1: Objective and Boundaries

1. Define exploit goal (data read, privilege gain, state change).
2. Define explicit stop condition.
3. Define prohibited actions and safety constraints.

Phase 2: Chain Design

1. Break exploit into stages:

• setup
• trigger
• control gain
• impact verification

2. Include fallback branches for unstable stages.

Phase 3: Procedure Authoring

1. Write deterministic steps with required inputs.
2. Include expected output per step.
3. Include failure diagnostics per step.

Phase 4: Robustness Checks

1. Re-run in fresh session/environment.
2. Validate whether exploit is deterministic or probabilistic.
3. Capture conditions that break reliability.

Phase 5: Reporting Package

1. Provide concise replay instructions.
2. Provide artifact index.
3. Provide impact statement tied to observed behavior.

Exploit Procedure Template

• Preconditions
• Setup commands/actions
• Trigger sequence
• Verification checks
• Cleanup and rollback
• Failure troubleshooting

Output Contract

{
  "exploit_plan": [],
  "stepwise_procedure": [],
  "success_signals": [],
  "failure_diagnostics": [],
  "safety_notes": []
}

Constraints

• Build only from validated primitives.
• Do not fabricate impact or reliability.

Quality Checklist

• Another tester can replay from instructions.
• Preconditions are explicit.
• Impact claim matches observed result.

Detailed Operator Notes

Validation Discipline

• Confirm static assumptions with targeted runtime checks.
• Keep one controlled input per hypothesis.
• Separate symbol-level hints from observed behavior.

Exploitability Heuristics

• Control quality over corrupted bytes/pointers.
• Trigger repeatability across process restarts.
• Mitigation interaction required for practical exploitation.

Common Blind Spots

• Architecture-specific undefined behavior differences.
• Parser edge cases reachable only through nested formats.
• Configuration-dependent code paths not visible in default runs.

Reporting Rules

• Include prerequisite runtime conditions.
• Include why alternative bug classes were rejected.
• Include a minimal regression-test suggestion for remediation.

Quick Scenarios

Scenario A: Control Validation

• Trigger candidate primitive with minimal input.
• Confirm memory/register side effect.
• Repeat across restarts for stability.
• Record constraints that break control.

Scenario B: Mitigation Interaction

• Confirm active hardening controls.
• Test whether primitive survives mitigations.
• Distinguish crash-only from exploit-capable outcomes.
• Capture bypass requirements if needed.

Scenario C: Reporting Readiness

• Verify prerequisite environment notes.
• Verify reproduction steps are deterministic.
• Verify impact statement is evidence-bound.
• Verify remediation target is specific.

Conditional Decision Matrix

Condition	Action	Evidence Requirement
Crash reproduces inconsistently	reduce input and isolate triggering fields	minimal trigger artifact
Primitive appears but control unclear	instrument memory/register checkpoints	control-surface trace
Mitigation blocks direct exploitation	model required bypass preconditions	mitigation interaction notes
Parser path uncertain	force parser branch with crafted corpus	branch-selection evidence
Static finding lacks runtime proof	add targeted runtime probe before reporting	runtime validation artifact

Advanced Coverage Extensions

1. Compare behavior across compiler optimization levels when possible.
2. Check locale/encoding effects on parser and boundary logic.
3. Check integer truncation across 32/64-bit interfaces.
4. Check allocator behavior differences under memory pressure.
5. Check cryptographic error oracles via differential response paths.