Security audit

alephnet-n组合包

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

This security bundle is not clearly malicious, but it asks for broad read/write/command/API capabilities while leaving important scope and data-flow details unclear.

Review before installing. Use it only in a controlled audit environment, confirm which member skills will be installed, verify what API keys or credentials are actually required, and do not submit production secrets, logs, network captures, or broad filesystem paths until the command, file-write, and data-transfer boundaries are clear.

SkillSpector

Vulnerability Patterns

Data ExfiltrationExternal Transmission, Env Variable Harvesting, File System Enumeration
MCP Tool PoisoningHidden Instructions, Unicode Deception, Parameter Description Injection
Prompt InjectionInstruction Override, Hidden Instructions, Exfiltration Commands
Privilege EscalationExcessive Permissions, Sudo/Root Execution, Credential Access
Supply ChainUnpinned Dependencies, External Script Fetching, Obfuscated Code

Findings (5)

Description-Behavior Mismatch

Medium

Confidence: 95% confidence
Finding: The manifest states that no external API is required, but later sections instruct users to configure API keys and establish API connections. This mismatch can mislead operators into exposing credentials or transmitting data externally under false assumptions about the bundle's trust boundaries and network behavior.

Intent-Code Divergence

Medium

Confidence: 95% confidence
Finding: The file presents contradictory statements about API requirements, claiming no external API dependency while also requiring API keys and connection setup later. In a security-oriented bundle, this inconsistency is dangerous because users may incorrectly assume offline/local-only operation and unintentionally leak sensitive audit data or secrets.

Intent-Code Divergence

Low

Confidence: 87% confidence
Finding: The documentation claims command execution occurs in a 'safe sandbox' but provides no technical basis, policy, or manifest control proving that isolation exists. Unsupported safety guarantees can cause users to run high-risk commands with reduced caution, increasing the chance of host impact if execution is less isolated than advertised.

Missing User Warnings

Medium

Confidence: 92% confidence
Finding: This bundle advertises read/write access, API integration, and system command execution but does not prominently warn users about possible filesystem changes, command side effects, credential use, or outbound data transfer. Because the bundle is positioned for security workflows and includes powerful tooling, unclear disclosure increases the risk of accidental system modification or sensitive-data exposure.

Missing User Warnings

Medium

Confidence: 90% confidence
Finding: The example code sends input data to a local HTTP API endpoint without any warning about what data may be transmitted, logged, or retained. In a security-audit context, example inputs may contain sensitive system, log, or incident data, so omission of privacy guidance can lead to unintentional disclosure.

Static analysis

No suspicious patterns detected.