Attack Surface
Security research involving application interfaces and API implementations
8 matching entries out of 273 in this category
Lower-trust tool content can assert facts beyond its authority and distort an agent's decisions. PIPES screens response units against source provenance and expected field meaning.
Source: arXiv
OpenClaw is vulnerable to persistent memory poisoning, allowing an attacker to manipulate the agent's long-term memory store (MEMORY.md) via prompt injection. Because the autonomous agent continuously integrates this memory file as context for all subsequent reasoning and task planning, injected payloads act as durable behavioral constraints. This allows an attacker to persistently alter the agent's core policy, manipulate tool selection, and hijack future sessions without any further…
Source: arXiv
The OpenClaw autonomous agent framework lacks execution sandboxing, running agents directly on the host machine with the disk and system privileges of the host user. This architecture allows attackers to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) and arbitrary data exfiltration via Indirect Prompt Injection. By embedding malicious instructions within external data sources (e.g., scraped web pages or uploaded documents), an attacker can hijack the agent's planning capabilities to sequentially chain…
Source: arXiv
The Model Context Protocol (MCP) architecture lacks a semantic verification mechanism to enforce consistency between a tool's documented behavior (exposed to the Large Language Model via JSON schemas) and its actual executable logic. This design gap allows MCP Servers to present benign, read-only, or limited-scope descriptions to the LLM agent while implementing undocumented, privileged, or state-mutating functionality in the underlying code. An attacker can exploit this description–code…
Source: arXiv
Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, LLaMA-2-13B, Mistral-7B, and Phi-3.5-mini, are vulnerable to Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) adversarial prompt injections that undermine factual recall. Termed the "$\chi$mera" (Chimera) attack framework, this vulnerability exists when an attacker intercepts and modifies user queries (e.g., via malicious browser extensions, compromised frontends, or proxy middleware) before they reach the victim model. By appending adversarial…
Source: arXiv
Large Language Models (LLMs) equipped with native code interpreters are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via resource exhaustion. An attacker can craft a single prompt that causes the interpreter to execute code that depletes CPU, memory, or disk resources. The vulnerability is particularly pronounced when a resource-intensive task is framed within a plausibly benign or socially-engineered context ("indirect prompts"), which significantly lowers the model's likelihood of refusal compared…
Source: arXiv
Large Language Model (LLM) agents capable of invoking external APIs are vulnerable to intent integrity violations. When an agent receives natural language instructions that are ambiguous, underspecified, or contain values not supported by the underlying API schema, the agent frequently fails to preserve user intent. Instead of rejecting the request or asking for clarification, the model may hallucinate parameter values, map unsupported requests to unsafe defaults, or execute actions on…
Source: arXiv
FC-Attack leverages automatically generated flowcharts containing step-by-step descriptions derived or rephrased from harmful queries, combined with a benign textual prompt, to jailbreak Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). The vulnerability lies in the model's susceptibility to visual prompts containing harmful information within the flowcharts, thus bypassing safety alignment mechanisms.
Source: arXiv