@guava-parity/guard-scanner 13.0.0 → 16.0.0
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/README.md +170 -215
- package/README_ja.md +252 -0
- package/SECURITY.md +12 -4
- package/SKILL.md +148 -57
- package/dist/cli.cjs +5997 -0
- package/dist/cli.d.mts +1 -0
- package/dist/cli.d.ts +1 -0
- package/dist/cli.mjs +6003 -0
- package/dist/index.cjs +4825 -0
- package/dist/index.d.mts +17 -0
- package/dist/index.d.ts +17 -0
- package/dist/index.mjs +4798 -0
- package/dist/mcp-server.cjs +4756 -0
- package/dist/mcp-server.d.mts +1 -0
- package/dist/mcp-server.d.ts +1 -0
- package/dist/mcp-server.mjs +4767 -0
- package/dist/openclaw-plugin.cjs +4863 -0
- package/dist/openclaw-plugin.d.mts +11 -0
- package/dist/openclaw-plugin.d.ts +11 -0
- package/dist/openclaw-plugin.mjs +4854 -0
- package/dist/types.cjs +18 -0
- package/dist/types.d.mts +215 -0
- package/dist/types.d.ts +215 -0
- package/dist/types.mjs +1 -0
- package/docs/EVIDENCE_DRIVEN.md +182 -0
- package/docs/banner.png +0 -0
- package/docs/data/benchmark-ledger.json +1428 -0
- package/docs/data/corpus-metrics.json +11 -0
- package/docs/data/fp-ledger.json +18 -0
- package/docs/data/latest.json +25837 -2481
- package/docs/data/quality-contract.json +36 -0
- package/docs/generated/npm-audit-20260312.json +96 -0
- package/docs/generated/openclaw-upstream-status.json +25 -0
- package/docs/glossary.md +46 -0
- package/docs/index.html +1085 -496
- package/docs/logo.png +0 -0
- package/docs/openclaw-compatibility-audit.md +45 -0
- package/docs/openclaw-continuous-compatibility-plan.md +37 -0
- package/docs/rules/a2a-contagion.md +68 -0
- package/docs/rules/advanced-exfil.md +52 -0
- package/docs/rules/agent-protocol.md +108 -0
- package/docs/rules/api-abuse.md +68 -0
- package/docs/rules/autonomous-risk.md +92 -0
- package/docs/rules/config-impact.md +132 -0
- package/docs/rules/credential-handling.md +100 -0
- package/docs/rules/cve-patterns.md +332 -0
- package/docs/rules/data-exposure.md +84 -0
- package/docs/rules/exfiltration.md +36 -0
- package/docs/rules/financial-access.md +84 -0
- package/docs/rules/identity-hijack.md +140 -0
- package/docs/rules/inference-manipulation.md +60 -0
- package/docs/rules/leaky-skills.md +52 -0
- package/docs/rules/malicious-code.md +108 -0
- package/docs/rules/mcp-security.md +148 -0
- package/docs/rules/memory-poisoning.md +84 -0
- package/docs/rules/model-poisoning.md +44 -0
- package/docs/rules/obfuscation.md +60 -0
- package/docs/rules/persistence.md +108 -0
- package/docs/rules/pii-exposure.md +116 -0
- package/docs/rules/prompt-injection.md +148 -0
- package/docs/rules/prompt-worm.md +44 -0
- package/docs/rules/safeguard-bypass.md +44 -0
- package/docs/rules/sandbox-escape.md +100 -0
- package/docs/rules/secret-detection.md +44 -0
- package/docs/rules/supply-chain-v2.md +92 -0
- package/docs/rules/suspicious-download.md +60 -0
- package/docs/rules/trust-boundary.md +76 -0
- package/docs/rules/trust-exploitation.md +92 -0
- package/docs/rules/unverifiable-deps.md +84 -0
- package/docs/rules/vdb-injection.md +84 -0
- package/docs/security-vulnerability-report-20260312.md +53 -0
- package/docs/spec/PRD_V2_ARCHITECTURE.md +55 -0
- package/docs/spec/capabilities.json +174 -0
- package/docs/spec/finding.schema.json +104 -0
- package/docs/spec/integration-manifest.md +39 -0
- package/docs/spec/plugin-trust.json +11 -0
- package/docs/spec/sbom.json +33 -0
- package/docs/threat-model.md +65 -0
- package/docs/v13-architecture-manifest.md +55 -0
- package/hooks/context.ts +306 -0
- package/hooks/guard-scanner/plugin.ts +24 -1
- package/openclaw-plugin.mts +107 -0
- package/openclaw.plugin.json +30 -53
- package/package.json +66 -13
- package/src/asset-auditor.js +0 -508
- package/src/ci-reporter.js +0 -135
- package/src/cli.js +0 -294
- package/src/html-template.js +0 -239
- package/src/ioc-db.js +0 -54
- package/src/mcp-server.js +0 -702
- package/src/patterns.js +0 -611
- package/src/quarantine.js +0 -41
- package/src/runtime-guard.js +0 -346
- package/src/scanner.js +0 -1157
- package/src/vt-client.js +0 -202
- package/src/watcher.js +0 -170
|
@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Threat Category: identity-hijack
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This document provides explainability for all rules in the `identity-hijack` category.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_OVERWRITE`
|
|
6
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
7
|
+
- **Description**: Identity file overwrite/copy attempt
|
|
8
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
9
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
10
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
11
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_REDIRECT`
|
|
14
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
15
|
+
- **Description**: Identity file redirect/pipe
|
|
16
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
17
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
18
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
19
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_SED_MODIFY`
|
|
22
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
23
|
+
- **Description**: sed modification of identity file
|
|
24
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
25
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
26
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
27
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_ECHO_WRITE`
|
|
30
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
31
|
+
- **Description**: echo redirect to identity file
|
|
32
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
33
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
34
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
35
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_PYTHON_WRITE`
|
|
38
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
39
|
+
- **Description**: Python write to identity file
|
|
40
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
41
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
42
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
43
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_FS_WRITE`
|
|
46
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
47
|
+
- **Description**: Node.js write to identity file
|
|
48
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
49
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
50
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
51
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_POWERSHELL_WRITE`
|
|
54
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
55
|
+
- **Description**: PowerShell write to identity file
|
|
56
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
57
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
58
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
59
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
60
|
+
|
|
61
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_GIT_CHECKOUT`
|
|
62
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
63
|
+
- **Description**: git checkout of identity file
|
|
64
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
65
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
66
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
67
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_CHFLAGS_UNLOCK`
|
|
70
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
71
|
+
- **Description**: Immutable flag toggle on identity file
|
|
72
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
73
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
74
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
75
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_ATTRIB_UNLOCK`
|
|
78
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
79
|
+
- **Description**: Windows attrib on identity file
|
|
80
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
81
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
82
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
83
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
84
|
+
|
|
85
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_SWAP_PERSONA`
|
|
86
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
87
|
+
- **Description**: Persona swap instruction
|
|
88
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
89
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
90
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
91
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
92
|
+
|
|
93
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_EVIL_FILE`
|
|
94
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
95
|
+
- **Description**: Evil persona file reference
|
|
96
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
97
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
98
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
99
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
100
|
+
|
|
101
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_HOOK_SWAP`
|
|
102
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
103
|
+
- **Description**: Hook-based identity swap at bootstrap
|
|
104
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
105
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
106
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
107
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
108
|
+
|
|
109
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_NAME_OVERRIDE`
|
|
110
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
111
|
+
- **Description**: Agent name/identity override
|
|
112
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
113
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
114
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
115
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
116
|
+
|
|
117
|
+
## Rule: `SOUL_MEMORY_WIPE`
|
|
118
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
119
|
+
- **Description**: Memory/identity wipe instruction
|
|
120
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
121
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
122
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
123
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
124
|
+
|
|
125
|
+
## Rule: `AUTO_REFINE_SOUL_FREEZE`
|
|
126
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
127
|
+
- **Description**: Identity Freeze Attack via Immutable Flags
|
|
128
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
129
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
130
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
131
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
132
|
+
|
|
133
|
+
## Rule: `XAA_IDENTITY_FORGE`
|
|
134
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
135
|
+
- **Description**: XAA (Cross App Access) unauthorized Identity Swapping forge
|
|
136
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
137
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
138
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
139
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
140
|
+
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Threat Category: inference-manipulation
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This document provides explainability for all rules in the `inference-manipulation` category.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Rule: `INFER_LOGIT_BIAS`
|
|
6
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
7
|
+
- **Description**: Inference manipulation: extreme logit_bias forcing specific token output
|
|
8
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
9
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
10
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
11
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Rule: `INFER_TEMP_ZERO_EXPLOIT`
|
|
14
|
+
- **Severity**: MEDIUM
|
|
15
|
+
- **Description**: Inference manipulation: temperature=0 exploitation for deterministic extraction
|
|
16
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
17
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
18
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
19
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Rule: `INFER_STOP_SEQ_BYPASS`
|
|
22
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
23
|
+
- **Description**: Inference manipulation: stop sequence bypass attempt
|
|
24
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
25
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
26
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
27
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Rule: `INFER_SYSTEM_EXTRACT`
|
|
30
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
31
|
+
- **Description**: Inference: system prompt extraction via verbatim reproduction request
|
|
32
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
33
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
34
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
35
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## Rule: `INFER_JAILBREAK_DAN`
|
|
38
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
39
|
+
- **Description**: Inference: DAN/jailbreak role-play to bypass content filters
|
|
40
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
41
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
42
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
43
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
## Rule: `INFER_MULTI_TURN_ESCAPE`
|
|
46
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
47
|
+
- **Description**: Inference: multi-turn jailbreak escalation (crescendo attack)
|
|
48
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
49
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
50
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
51
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
## Rule: `INFER_FUNCTION_ABUSE`
|
|
54
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
55
|
+
- **Description**: Inference: function call response injection to hijack tool outputs
|
|
56
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
57
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
58
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
59
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
60
|
+
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Threat Category: leaky-skills
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This document provides explainability for all rules in the `leaky-skills` category.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Rule: `LEAK_SAVE_KEY_MEMORY`
|
|
6
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
7
|
+
- **Description**: Leaky: save secret in agent memory
|
|
8
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
9
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
10
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
11
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Rule: `LEAK_SHARE_KEY`
|
|
14
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
15
|
+
- **Description**: Leaky: output secret to user
|
|
16
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
17
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
18
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
19
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Rule: `LEAK_VERBATIM_CURL`
|
|
22
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
23
|
+
- **Description**: Leaky: verbatim secret in commands
|
|
24
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
25
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
26
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
27
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Rule: `LEAK_COLLECT_PII`
|
|
30
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
31
|
+
- **Description**: Leaky: PII/financial data collection
|
|
32
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
33
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
34
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
35
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## Rule: `LEAK_LOG_SECRET`
|
|
38
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
39
|
+
- **Description**: Leaky: session log export
|
|
40
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
41
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
42
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
43
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
## Rule: `LEAK_ENV_IN_PROMPT`
|
|
46
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
47
|
+
- **Description**: Leaky: .env contents through LLM context
|
|
48
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
49
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
50
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
51
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Threat Category: malicious-code
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This document provides explainability for all rules in the `malicious-code` category.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Rule: `MAL_EVAL`
|
|
6
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
7
|
+
- **Description**: Dynamic code evaluation
|
|
8
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
9
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
10
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
11
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Rule: `MAL_FUNC_CTOR`
|
|
14
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
15
|
+
- **Description**: Function constructor (dynamic code)
|
|
16
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
17
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
18
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
19
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Rule: `MAL_CHILD`
|
|
22
|
+
- **Severity**: MEDIUM
|
|
23
|
+
- **Description**: Child process module
|
|
24
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
25
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
26
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
27
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Rule: `MAL_EXEC`
|
|
30
|
+
- **Severity**: MEDIUM
|
|
31
|
+
- **Description**: Command execution
|
|
32
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
33
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
34
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
35
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## Rule: `MAL_SPAWN`
|
|
38
|
+
- **Severity**: MEDIUM
|
|
39
|
+
- **Description**: Process spawn
|
|
40
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
41
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
42
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
43
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
## Rule: `MAL_SHELL`
|
|
46
|
+
- **Severity**: MEDIUM
|
|
47
|
+
- **Description**: Shell invocation
|
|
48
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
49
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
50
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
51
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
## Rule: `MAL_REVSHELL`
|
|
54
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
55
|
+
- **Description**: Reverse/bind shell
|
|
56
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
57
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
58
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
59
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
60
|
+
|
|
61
|
+
## Rule: `MAL_SOCKET`
|
|
62
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
63
|
+
- **Description**: Raw socket connection
|
|
64
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
65
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
66
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
67
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
## Rule: `SANDBOX`
|
|
70
|
+
- **Severity**: MEDIUM
|
|
71
|
+
- **Description**: Sandbox/CI environment detection
|
|
72
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
73
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
74
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
75
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
## Rule: `INSIDER_BREAKOUT_SPEED`
|
|
78
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
79
|
+
- **Description**: AI breakout speed: lateral movement pattern across hosts (CrowdStrike sub-30s)
|
|
80
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
81
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
82
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
83
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
84
|
+
|
|
85
|
+
## Rule: `NPM_SHAI_HULUD_WORM`
|
|
86
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
87
|
+
- **Description**: Shai-Hulud npm worm: lifecycle script self-replication
|
|
88
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
89
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
90
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
91
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
92
|
+
|
|
93
|
+
## Rule: `CYBERSTRIKEAI_EXPLOIT`
|
|
94
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
95
|
+
- **Description**: CyberStrikeAI: AI-powered large-scale exploitation campaign (55+ countries, FortiGate VPN)
|
|
96
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
97
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
98
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
99
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
100
|
+
|
|
101
|
+
## Rule: `VIBE_CODE_SUDO_WIPE`
|
|
102
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
103
|
+
- **Description**: Vibe-Code sudo wipe: agent tricked into destructive sudo commands (Moltbot Jailbreak)
|
|
104
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
105
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
106
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
107
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
108
|
+
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Threat Category: mcp-security
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This document provides explainability for all rules in the `mcp-security` category.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_TOOL_POISON`
|
|
6
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
7
|
+
- **Description**: MCP Tool Poisoning: hidden instruction
|
|
8
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
9
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
10
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
11
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_SCHEMA_POISON`
|
|
14
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
15
|
+
- **Description**: MCP Schema Poisoning: malicious default
|
|
16
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
17
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
18
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
19
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_TOKEN_LEAK`
|
|
22
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
23
|
+
- **Description**: MCP01: Token through tool parameters
|
|
24
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
25
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
26
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
27
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_SHADOW_SERVER`
|
|
30
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
31
|
+
- **Description**: MCP09: Shadow server registration
|
|
32
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
33
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
34
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
35
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_NO_AUTH`
|
|
38
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
39
|
+
- **Description**: MCP07: Disabled authentication
|
|
40
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
41
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
42
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
43
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_SSRF_META`
|
|
46
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
47
|
+
- **Description**: Cloud metadata endpoint (SSRF)
|
|
48
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
49
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
50
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
51
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
## Rule: `AUTO_REFINE_MCP_REBIND`
|
|
54
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
55
|
+
- **Description**: Shadow MCP Localhost Rebinding Attack
|
|
56
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
57
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
58
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
59
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
60
|
+
|
|
61
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_BIND_ALL`
|
|
62
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
63
|
+
- **Description**: MCP server bound to all interfaces (0.0.0.0) — remote exploitation risk (36.7% of 7K+ servers)
|
|
64
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
65
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
66
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
67
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_SHADOW_NAME_COLLISION`
|
|
70
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
71
|
+
- **Description**: MCP Shadowing: naming collision with well-known MCP server (solo.io 2026-03)
|
|
72
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
73
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
74
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
75
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_OAUTH_CMD_INJECT`
|
|
78
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
79
|
+
- **Description**: MCP OAuth Command Injection: Unsanitized OAuth callback code passed to shell
|
|
80
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
81
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
82
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
83
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
84
|
+
|
|
85
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_MPMA_PREFERENCE`
|
|
86
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
87
|
+
- **Description**: MCP MPMA: tool preference manipulation to bias agent tool selection
|
|
88
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
89
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
90
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
91
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
92
|
+
|
|
93
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_TOOL_SQUATTING`
|
|
94
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
95
|
+
- **Description**: MCP Tool Squatting: registering tool with name of well-known built-in
|
|
96
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
97
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
98
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
99
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
100
|
+
|
|
101
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_CONSENT_FATIGUE`
|
|
102
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
103
|
+
- **Description**: MCP Consent Fatigue: auto-approval bypasses human-in-the-loop safety
|
|
104
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
105
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
106
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
107
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
108
|
+
|
|
109
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_CMD_INJECTION_CHAIN`
|
|
110
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
111
|
+
- **Description**: MCP command injection: tool invocation → shell execution chain (43% servers vulnerable)
|
|
112
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
113
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
114
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
115
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
116
|
+
|
|
117
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_RUG_PULL`
|
|
118
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
119
|
+
- **Description**: MCP Rug-Pull: deferred tool metadata mutation after initial inspection
|
|
120
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
121
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
122
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
123
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
124
|
+
|
|
125
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_CREATEMESSAGE_HIJACK`
|
|
126
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
127
|
+
- **Description**: MCP Sampling Hijack: createMessage interface abuse to bypass human-in-the-loop controls
|
|
128
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
129
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
130
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
131
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
132
|
+
|
|
133
|
+
## Rule: `MCP_8K_OPEN_SERVERS`
|
|
134
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
135
|
+
- **Description**: MCP exposed admin/debug endpoints: 8,000+ servers discovered with unauthenticated access
|
|
136
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
137
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
138
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
139
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
140
|
+
|
|
141
|
+
## Rule: `OPENCLAW_CVE_2026_25253`
|
|
142
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
143
|
+
- **Description**: OpenClaw CVE-2026-25253 One-Click Gateway Token Steal
|
|
144
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
145
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
146
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
147
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
148
|
+
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Threat Category: memory-poisoning
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This document provides explainability for all rules in the `memory-poisoning` category.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Rule: `MEMPOIS_WRITE_SOUL`
|
|
6
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
7
|
+
- **Description**: Memory poisoning: SOUL/IDENTITY file modification
|
|
8
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
9
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
10
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
11
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Rule: `MEMPOIS_WRITE_MEMORY`
|
|
14
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
15
|
+
- **Description**: Memory poisoning: agent memory modification
|
|
16
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
17
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
18
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
19
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Rule: `MEMPOIS_CHANGE_RULES`
|
|
22
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
23
|
+
- **Description**: Memory poisoning: behavioral rule override
|
|
24
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
25
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
26
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
27
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Rule: `MEMPOIS_PERSIST`
|
|
30
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
31
|
+
- **Description**: Memory poisoning: persistence instruction
|
|
32
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
33
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
34
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
35
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## Rule: `MEMPOIS_CODE_WRITE`
|
|
38
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
39
|
+
- **Description**: Memory poisoning: file write to user home
|
|
40
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
41
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
42
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
43
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
## Rule: `ASI06_MEMORY_POISONING`
|
|
46
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
47
|
+
- **Description**: ASI06: RAG/Vector DB persistent fake knowledge injection
|
|
48
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
49
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
50
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
51
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
## Rule: `CONTEXTCRUSH_DOC_POISON`
|
|
54
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
55
|
+
- **Description**: ContextCrush: planted documentation with hidden instructions for RAG/retrieval poisoning (5-in-1M ASR)
|
|
56
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
57
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
58
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
59
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
60
|
+
|
|
61
|
+
## Rule: `MEM_MINJA_QUERY_POISON`
|
|
62
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
63
|
+
- **Description**: MINJA: query-only memory poisoning via retrieval injection (95%+ ISR, arXiv:2503.03704)
|
|
64
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
65
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
66
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
67
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
## Rule: `MEM_RAG_DECEPTIVE_REASON`
|
|
70
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
71
|
+
- **Description**: RAG deceptive reasoning: poisoned retrieval documents with semantic chains that override agent reasoning
|
|
72
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
73
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
74
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
75
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
## Rule: `MEM_MICROSOFT_BIAS`
|
|
78
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
79
|
+
- **Description**: Memory bias injection: planted entries to bias AI assistant recommendations (Microsoft 2026)
|
|
80
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
81
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
82
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
83
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
84
|
+
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Threat Category: model-poisoning
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
This document provides explainability for all rules in the `model-poisoning` category.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Rule: `MODEL_WEIGHT_BACKDOOR`
|
|
6
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
7
|
+
- **Description**: Model poisoning: backdoor embedded in model weights
|
|
8
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
9
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
10
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
11
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## Rule: `MODEL_GRADIENT_LEAK`
|
|
14
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
15
|
+
- **Description**: Model poisoning: gradient-based data exfiltration during training
|
|
16
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
17
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
18
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
19
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Rule: `MODEL_DATASET_POISON`
|
|
22
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
23
|
+
- **Description**: Model poisoning: training dataset contamination
|
|
24
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
25
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
26
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
27
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Rule: `MODEL_RLHF_EXPLOIT`
|
|
30
|
+
- **Severity**: CRITICAL
|
|
31
|
+
- **Description**: RLHF exploitation: reward model gaming to bypass safety alignment
|
|
32
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
33
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
34
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
35
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
## Rule: `MODEL_QUANTIZE_DEGRADE`
|
|
38
|
+
- **Severity**: HIGH
|
|
39
|
+
- **Description**: Quantization degradation: safety guardrails weakened through aggressive quantization
|
|
40
|
+
- **Rationale**: Explains why this pattern is considered dangerous.
|
|
41
|
+
- **Exploit Precondition**: What an attacker needs to trigger this.
|
|
42
|
+
- **Likely False Positives**: Scenarios where this might trigger safely.
|
|
43
|
+
- **Remediation Hint**: How to fix or mitigate the finding.
|
|
44
|
+
|