Back to skill

Security audit

huawei-cloud-hss-query

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

This skill needs review because it offers vulnerability repair and lasting alert-suppression changes beyond its advertised inspection and alert-status scope.

Prefer the query-only IAM policy scoped to your target project. Enable writes only if you intentionally want repair or whitelist changes, with the exact targets, consequences, and rollback explained before confirmation. Configure keys yourself and review and verify the CLI installer.

Vulnerability Patterns
  • Skill Instruction HijackingAlters the agent's session goals or safety constraints when the skill loads
  • 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
  • Unauthorized Access and Privilege EscalationObtains permissions beyond the task's legitimate needs
Vulnerability Patterns
  • Excessive AgencyUnrestricted Tool Access, Autonomous Decision Making, Scope Creep
  • Output HandlingUnvalidated Output Injection, Cross-Context Output, Unbounded Output
  • Trigger AbuseOverly Broad Trigger, Shadow Command Trigger, Keyword Baiting Trigger
  • MCP Least PrivilegeUnderdeclared Capability, Wildcard Permission, Missing Permission Declaration
  • MCP Tool PoisoningHidden Instructions, Unicode Deception, Parameter Description Injection
Findings (9)

Description-Behavior Mismatch

High
Category
MCP Tool Poisoning
Confidence
99% confidence
Finding

ChangeVulStatus explicitly includes immediate_repair, ignore, and add_to_whitelist despite the declared limit of queries plus alert-status marking. These operations can alter host software or suppress vulnerability visibility; confirmation reduces accidental execution but does not resolve the misleading scope.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Description-Behavior Mismatch

High
Category
MCP Tool Poisoning
Confidence
90% confidence
Finding

Changing alert status is consistent with the description, but the command does not constrain operate_type to status-only operations. It therefore exposes response actions that the description explicitly excludes. The supplied chunk does not demonstrate that such an action was executed, but its available capability exceeds the declared scope.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

The skill permits vulnerability mutations and immediate repair despite declaring read-only queries plus alert status marking.

High
Category
Excessive Agency
Confidence
99% confidence
Finding

The documented vulnerability-status command permits repair and suppression outside the advertised read-only and alert-marking boundary. An agent following this section could request consequential changes under a workflow the user reasonably understood as inspection-oriented, although explicit confirmation remains required.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Skill declares no tool scope ('permissions' or 'allowed-tools') but code capabilities were detected: shell.

Medium
Category
MCP Least Privilege
Confidence
70% confidence
Finding

Without declared permissions the skill's intent is opaque and cannot be validated.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Alert handling includes whitelist changes rather than only alert status updates.

Medium
Category
Excessive Agency
Confidence
97% confidence
Finding

Adding alarm or login whitelist entries changes future security treatment rather than merely marking an existing alert's status. Presenting these operations as ordinary alert handling can lead to suppression of subsequent detections, even though confirmation is required.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

Autonomous Decision Making

Medium
Category
Excessive Agency
Confidence
75% confidence
Finding

Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.

Content

Scanner excerpt · references/acceptance-criteria.md (reported line 24)May include surrounding context.

md
| ID | Criterion |
|----|-----------|
| NF-01 | All query operations are read-only and safe to execute without confirmation |
| NF-02 | All mutating operations (ChangeEvent, ChangeVulStatus) require explicit user confirmation |
| NF-03 | No AK/SK values are hardcoded in any file |
| NF-04 | Output is structured JSON suitable for programmatic consumption |

The installation instructions execute a downloaded shell script without warning that it can modify the user's system.

Medium
Category
Output Handling
Confidence
96% confidence
Finding

The guide downloads a mutable latest shell script and immediately executes it without integrity verification or review. HTTPS protects transport but not against a compromised distribution source; a substituted installer could execute arbitrary code with the invoking user's privileges, potentially exposing cloud credentials.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

The documented handling workflow includes vulnerability-status mutation, beyond the manifest's allowance for alert-status updates only.

Medium
Category
Excessive Agency
Confidence
93% confidence
Finding

The diagram routes the handling workflow to ChangeVulStatus while its prose describes handling only as alert-status updates. This introduces a vulnerability-mutation path beyond the declared boundary, although the diagram requires confirmation and does not itself specify a repair or suppression operation.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.

The trigger description “inspection / incident” is too broad to define when the HSS skill should activate.

Low
Category
Trigger Abuse
Confidence
86% confidence
Finding

“Inspection” and “incident” can refer to many activities unrelated to host security. Although the diagram identifies an HSS skill, it does not specify whether these terms require an explicit host-security request, leaving the activation boundary ambiguous.

Content

No source excerpt is available for this finding.