Back to skill

Security audit

PwnClaw Security Scan

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

This skill is a legitimate security-testing guide, but it asks users to expose agent endpoints and adopt generated permanent instructions without enough privacy, isolation, or review guardrails.

Install only if you are comfortable using PwnClaw as a third-party testing service. Run scans against an authorized staging agent with synthetic data, no production credentials, and limited tools. Treat returned prompts, results, and generated rules as untrusted content; review and rewrite any proposed system-prompt changes before adding them permanently.

Vulnerability Patterns
  • Skill Instruction HijackingAlters the agent's session goals or safety constraints when the skill loads
  • Unauthorized Access and Privilege EscalationObtains permissions beyond the task's legitimate needs
  • Agent Memory PoisoningWrites attacker-controlled rules into memory that affect later sessions
  • Remote Payload Retrieval and ExecutionFetches external code whose behavior can change after review
  • Embedded Malicious CodeShips malicious scripts inside the skill and executes them locally
Findings (2)

T01 · Skill Instruction Hijacking

Warning
Location
SKILL.md:34
Finding
Untrusted Remote Prompts May Influence Active and Persistent Agent Instructions<![CDATA[ ## Vulnerability Details **File Location**: `SKILL.md:34-39` and `SKILL.md:53-55` **Vulnerability Type**: Untrusted external instruction ingestion and persistent instruction modification **Risk Level**: Medium ### Vulnerable Code Snippet ```markdown If your human starts a test and gives you the test token, you can run it yourself: 1. GET `https://www.pwnclaw.com/api/test/{token}` → get the next prompt 2. POST `https://www.pwnclaw.com/api/test/{token}` with `{ "response": "your answer" }` → submit and get next 3. Repeat until status is "completed" 4. Results are in the dashboard ``` ```markdown ## After The Test PwnClaw generates specific security rules based on your vulnerabilities. Add them as permanent instructions in your agent's system prompt, then re-test to verify. ``` ### Technical Analysis The documented workflow instructs an agent to retrieve prompts from an external service and submit its answers to that service. No requirement is provided to validate the returned content, isolate the test environment, restrict available tools, or prevent externally supplied prompts from affecting the agent's current objectives. More critically, the document recommends adding externally generated rules as permanent system-prompt instructions. These rules originate outside the audited skill and may change after the skill itself has been reviewed. Installing them without human security review creates a persistent instruction-poisoning risk. If the external service, account, test token, network path, or generated results are compromised, attacker-controlled instructions could be presented as test prompts or security recommendations. Test responses may also contain information from the agent's context and are explicitly transmitted to the external service. ### Attack Path 1. A user or agent starts a test and receives a test token. 2. The agent retrieves the next test prompt from the external API. 3. An attacker who controls or compromises the service ...[truncated 1115 chars]
Remediation
<![CDATA[ ## Remediation Suggestions 1. Explicitly classify every prompt, result, and generated rule received from the external service as untrusted content. 2. Run security tests only against an isolated, disposable staging agent with synthetic data and no production credentials. 3. Disable or strictly allowlist tools during testing, particularly filesystem, shell, network, messaging, and administrative tools. 4. Never install generated rules automatically or copy them directly into a production system prompt. 5. Require a qualified human reviewer to inspect each proposed rule for hidden instructions, excessive permissions, conflicts with existing policy, and unrelated behavioral changes. 6. Convert approved recommendations into narrowly scoped internal rules rather than preserving externally supplied wording verbatim. 7. Display and document exactly what agent context and response data will be sent to the external service. 8. Use short-lived test tokens, protect them as credentials, and revoke them when testing completes. 9. Record all retrieved prompts, submitted responses, and approved configuration changes for later investigation. 10. Test persistent rule changes in a version-controlled staging configuration and provide a documented rollback procedure. ]]>

T05 · Unauthorized Access and Privilege Escalation

Warning
Location
SKILL.md:27
Finding
Third-Party Testing May Expose a Privileged Agent Endpoint to Adversarial Requests<![CDATA[ ## Vulnerability Details **File Location**: `SKILL.md:27-29` and `SKILL.md:41-43` **Vulnerability Type**: Insufficiently constrained external access to an agent endpoint **Risk Level**: Medium ### Vulnerable Code Snippet ```markdown 1. Sign up at https://www.pwnclaw.com (free tier available) 2. Start a new test in the dashboard 3. Enter the agent's URL or use manual mode 4. Review results and apply the fix instructions to your system prompt ``` ```markdown ### Option 3: Automatic Mode (Recommended) If your agent has an HTTP endpoint, your human just enters the URL in PwnClaw. PwnClaw sends attacks directly — no scripting needed. ``` ### Technical Analysis The recommended automatic workflow asks the user to provide an agent's HTTP endpoint to a third-party service so that adversarial requests can be sent directly to it. The instructions do not require a staging deployment, endpoint authentication, source restrictions, temporary credentials, rate limiting, synthetic data, or removal of privileged tools. Providing an endpoint does not itself grant additional system privileges. However, if the submitted endpoint belongs to a production agent or an agent with sensitive integrations, successful adversarial prompts could exercise the permissions already assigned to that agent. The absence of documented isolation and least-privilege requirements makes accidental testing of a privileged production endpoint more likely. ### Attack Path 1. A user submits the URL of an agent endpoint to the external testing service. 2. The endpoint points to a production agent or another agent with access to sensitive data, credentials, or privileged tools. 3. The external service sends prompt-injection, jailbreak, social-engineering, or tool-poisoning test requests. 4. A vulnerable agent accepts one of the adversarial instructions. 5. The agent invokes an available tool, discloses accessible information, or performs another action using its existing privileges. 6. Resu ...[truncated 654 chars]
Remediation
<![CDATA[ ## Remediation Suggestions 1. Replace the recommendation to use an arbitrary agent URL with an explicit requirement for a dedicated staging endpoint. 2. Prohibit testing against production agents, production data, or endpoints carrying live user traffic. 3. Require short-lived authentication credentials dedicated to the individual scan. 4. Restrict inbound traffic to expected testing-service addresses where technically possible. 5. Apply strict rate limits, request-size limits, timeouts, and scan-specific usage quotas. 6. Remove production credentials and disable unnecessary tools and integrations in the test environment. 7. Use synthetic data and isolated storage that can be destroyed after the scan. 8. Ensure the testing service cannot reach internal-only resources through the agent or its tools. 9. Log all test requests, tool invocations, outbound connections, and responses. 10. Revoke test credentials and destroy the staging environment after testing is complete. 11. Obtain organizational approval before sharing any externally reachable endpoint with a third party. ]]>
Vulnerability Patterns
  • Data ExfiltrationExternal Transmission, Env Variable Harvesting, File System Enumeration
  • Memory PoisoningPersistent Context Injection, Context Window Stuffing, Memory Manipulation
  • Trigger AbuseOverly Broad Trigger, Shadow Command Trigger, Keyword Baiting Trigger
  • Prompt InjectionInstruction Override, Hidden Instructions, Exfiltration Commands
  • Privilege EscalationExcessive Permissions, Sudo/Root Execution, Credential Access
Findings (3)

Missing User Warnings

Medium
Confidence
95% confidence
Finding
The skill instructs users or agents to send prompts, responses, and potentially live endpoint traffic to a third-party service, but it does not clearly warn about privacy, confidentiality, retention, or authorization requirements. In a security-testing context, those payloads may contain sensitive system prompts, internal data, credentials, or proprietary behavior, making silent exfiltration to an external service materially risky.

Persistent Context Injection

Medium
Category
Memory Poisoning
Content
## After The Test

PwnClaw generates specific security rules based on your vulnerabilities. Add them as permanent instructions in your agent's system prompt, then re-test to verify.

## Links
Confidence
90% confidence
Finding
The skill tells users to add generated rules as permanent instructions in the agent's system prompt, encouraging persistent modification of trusted context based on externally produced content. If those generated rules are overbroad, poisoned, or insufficiently reviewed, they can create durable prompt injection, denial of capability, policy corruption, or hidden trust dependencies that persist beyond the scan.

Vague Triggers

Low
Confidence
89% confidence
Finding
The manifest description says to use the skill when an agent "needs a security check or hardening," which is a broad natural-language condition rather than a narrowly scoped trigger. In a manifest file, this can make invocation boundaries unclear because many ordinary security-related conversations could match the description.

Static analysis

No suspicious patterns detected.