ClawHub
Back to skill

Security audit

GDPR Export Compliance（GDPR出海合规实操）

Security checks for vulnerabilities and agentic risk

Overview

This skill is a disclosed GDPR reference and local rules-based helper, with no evidence of network access, credential use, persistence, or hidden data collection.

Installers should treat this as compliance reference material, not legal advice. The optional Python helper runs locally and appears limited to rule-based stdout output, but users should still avoid pasting confidential personal data into prompts or command arguments unless they are comfortable processing it locally in their environment.

SkillSpector

Vulnerability Patterns
  • MCP Least PrivilegeUnderdeclared Capability, Wildcard Permission, Missing Permission Declaration
  • MCP Tool PoisoningHidden Instructions, Unicode Deception, Parameter Description Injection
  • Prompt InjectionInstruction Override, Hidden Instructions, Exfiltration Commands
  • Data ExfiltrationExternal Transmission, Env Variable Harvesting, File System Enumeration
  • Privilege EscalationExcessive Permissions, Sudo/Root Execution, Credential Access
Findings (2)

Lp3

Medium
Category
MCP Least Privilege
Confidence
83% confidence
Finding
The skill advertises executable local tooling (`python tools/gdpr_toolkit.py ...`) and the static analyzer detected shell, file-read, and file-write capabilities, but no permissions are declared. This creates a transparency and least-privilege problem: users may run a skill that can access or modify local files without an explicit permission contract, increasing the chance of unintended data exposure or workspace changes.

Tp4

High
Category
MCP Tool Poisoning
Confidence
92% confidence
Finding
The documented purpose is a GDPR compliance handbook and local decision toolkit, but the analyzer reports additional behavior such as repository auditing, local file inspection, subprocess execution, security-pattern scanning, and report generation, while some claimed compliance features are not implemented. This mismatch is dangerous because users may trust the skill in a legal/compliance context while it performs broader local analysis than expected, potentially accessing sensitive repository data and undermining informed consent and trust boundaries.

Static analysis

No suspicious patterns detected.