No-Box Vulnerability Analysis: Description-only Detection of Indirect Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in MCP Servers
-cross Abstract: Conventional vulnerability analysis relies on either system access or dynamic interaction, all of which may be unavailable to…
Arxiv 2 versions
-
1 new sentence, beginning: “-cross Abstract: Conventional vulnerability analysis relies on either system access or dynamic interaction, all of which may…”
No-Box Vulnerability Analysis: Description-only Detection of Indirect Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in MCP Servers
-cross Abstract: Conventional vulnerability analysis relies on either system access or dynamic interaction, all of which may be unavailable to third-party analysts auditing closed-source, remotely hosted, critical in situ systems, or commercially gated software. Therefore, we propose a new paradigm of no-box vulnerability analysis in which neither access nor runtime interaction is available, and only functionality metadata is available. Such metadata defines the intended behavior of the system, including its inputs, outputs, and side effects, while constraining the space of implementations consistent with that behavior. We propose hypothesizing about vulnerabilities that exist across all possible implementations of a given system metadata, without observing or interacting with the target system. An analyst can later validate these hypotheses when additional access is available. We showcase the feasibility of no-box vulnerability analysis through implementing a prototype called MCPSEC, which audits Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers for indirect prompt injection vulnerabilities using only the tool metadata exposed at server registration time. We evaluate MCPSEC on 20 widely deployed MCP servers comprising 177 tools, among which human evaluators confirm 95 vulnerable tools. MCPSEC identified 143 tools as vulnerable, and for each vulnerable tool, it produced a hypothesized vulnerability along with exploitation technique. Using metadata alone, MCPSEC predicted 94 (98.9% recall) real verified vulnerabilities, compared against an LLM baseline with 80 (84.2% recall). Overall, our results introduce no-box vulnerability analysis as a new analysis paradigm and demonstrate its practical feasibility in realistic systems.
-
No-Box Vulnerability Analysis: Description-only Detection of Indirect Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in MCP Servers
Conventional vulnerability analysis relies on either system access or dynamic interaction, all of which may be unavailable to third-party analysts auditing closed-source, remotely hosted, critical in situ systems, or commercially gated software. Therefore, we propose a new paradigm of no-box vulnerability analysis in which neither access nor runtime interaction is available, and only functionality metadata is available. Such metadata defines the intended behavior of the system, including its inputs, outputs, and side effects, while constraining the space of implementations consistent with that behavior. We propose hypothesizing about vulnerabilities that exist across all possible implementations of a given system metadata, without observing or interacting with the target system. An analyst can later validate these hypotheses when additional access is available. We showcase the feasibility of no-box vulnerability analysis through implementing a prototype called MCPSEC, which audits Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers for indirect prompt injection vulnerabilities using only the tool metadata exposed at server registration time. We evaluate MCPSEC on 20 widely deployed MCP servers comprising 177 tools, among which human evaluators confirm 95 vulnerable tools. MCPSEC identified 143 tools as vulnerable, and for each vulnerable tool, it produced a hypothesized vulnerability along with exploitation technique. Using metadata alone, MCPSEC predicted 94 (98.9% recall) real verified vulnerabilities, compared against an LLM baseline with 80 (84.2% recall). Overall, our results introduce no-box vulnerability analysis as a new analysis paradigm and demonstrate its practical feasibility in realistic systems.
Versions are compared on the headline and summary the publisher puts in their feed. An edit to the body of an article that leaves both untouched will not appear here.
Why am I seeing this Ranked on source trust — arXiv
It ranks mainly on source trust: arXiv is the most reliable outlet we track on this subject, and is the only one on the story so far.
Link-outLink-out, because it did not clear the bar for a write-up. Link-out means we point at the publisher and say nothing of our own.
| Factor | Weight | Score | Contribution | Where it came from |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corroboration | 0.35 | 0.39 | +0.135 26% | 1 independent org on the story. Tier-3 aggregators never corroborate — they can show something is circulating, never that it is true. |
| Source trustleads | 0.25 | 0.85 | +0.212 41% | arXiv is the highest-trust source on this story and is first-party — the organisation announcing its own news. Trust is taken from the best source, not averaged. |
| Pickup rate | 0.20 | 0.00 | +0.000 0% | One counted organisation, so there is no spread to measure — nothing has picked this up to set a rate. |
| Freshness | 0.20 | 0.85 | +0.171 33% | Halves every 10 hours from the newest item on the story. This is the only factor that rewards a story for nothing more than being recent. |
Corroboration counts distinct organisations, once each, and only from tiers 1 and 2. Freshness halves every 10 hours, so this ranking is a snapshot and will differ at the next build.
What happened
-cross Abstract: Conventional vulnerability analysis relies on either system access or dynamic interaction, all of which may be unavailable to third-party analysts auditing closed-source, remotely hosted, critical in situ systems, or commercially gated software. Therefore, we propose a new paradigm of no-box vulnerability analysis in which neither access nor runtime interaction is available, and only functionality metadata is available. Such metadata defines the intended behavior of the system, including its inputs, outputs, and side effects, while constraining the space of implementations consistent with that behavior.
How this story arrived
Ordered by when each source was first observed, which is what the velocity figure is computed from. Publishers backdate; observed order does not.
- 01 Arxivfirst-party first seen No-Box Vulnerability Analysis: Description-only Detection of Indirect Prompt Injection Vulne
Overclock clusters coverage from independent sources and grades it automatically. The figures above are computed, not editorial. This page summarises and links to reporting by the outlets named — follow the links for the original work.