LLM Plugin Injection

[Tanuu26]

No description provided.

[continue]

Keep this PR in a mergeable state →

Learn more

---

All Green is an AI agent that automatically:

✅ Addresses code review comments

✅ Fixes failing CI checks

✅ Resolves merge conflicts

[stevechristeycoley]

Automated Analysis Results of This Use Case

Thank you for providing your use case! Apologies for the form letter, but it's a pleasure to see y'all :)

With technical knowledge work such as this project, it is important to structure information as well as possible, so that it can be processed automatically.

We also want to validate our inputs ;-)

So, this report contains the results of an automated analysis of the provided use case, looking for consistency with the documented format as covered in Section 3 "Case Study Structure" of the Style Guide.

Disclaimers:

• David Wheeler may provide guidance on how to handle these reports. We're grateful that you've put in this work already, and we don't want to burden you unnecessarily 'cuz you're probably busy :)
• Our style guide was not always 100% clear (as often happens early in technical knowledge work), so this analysis attempts to automatically resolve potential inconsistencies.
• This report is provided as a convenience. There may be some errors or omissions in this report.
• We will conduct deeper analysis at a later time.

Items are prioritized from Informative, Low, Medium, to High in terms of current importance to the project.

Analyzing Presence of Markdown

Markdown detected in the document.

Parser Issues

The following issues were encountered by the parser used to analyze this file. This might explain potential errors and false positives in the subsequent analysis.

• [Info] Inferring that line 1 contains the title

Section Analysis

• [Med] Unexpected/non-standard section name: 'Generic vulnerable code' (this may break analysis)
• [Med] Unexpected/non-standard section name: 'Using unsandboxed environment makes it vulnerable' (this may break analysis)
• [Med] Unexpected/non-standard section name: 'sandboxed environment makes it secure' (this may break analysis)
• [Med] Unexpected/non-standard section name: 'vulnerable code' (this may break analysis)
• [Info] 0 major section-name issues detected.
• [Med] Section 'Introduction' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Software' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Weakness' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Vulnerability' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Exploit' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Fix' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Prevention' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Conclusion' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'References' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Contributions' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2

Analyzing Title Section

Note: the analysis may be incorrect depending on how
you provided the title. This an issue with the analyzer.

Inferred/Extracted Title begins with text: 'LLM Plugin Injection'

• [Low] Title does not contain only capital letters

Analyzing Introduction Section

No issues found.

Analyzing Software Section

No issues found.

Analyzing Weakness Section

No issues found.

Analyzing Vulnerability Section

• [Med] Vulnerability section does not appear to contain a 'vulnerable file:' label

Analyzing Fix Section

• [Med] Fix section does not appear to contain a 'fixed file:' label

Analyzing References Section

No issues found.

[stevechristeycoley]

This is a brief checklist for review of this writeup for possible
inclusion in the Secure Coding Case Studies work.

Review Information

Metadata	Info
Author	Tanuja Konda Reddy
Reviewer	Steve Christey Coley
Start Date	2025-12-16 20:21:00
End Date	2025-12-16 20:55:00
PR	#25
PR Access Date	2025-12-14 19:07:00
Issue	#6
File(s)	LLM Plugin Injection.md
Recommendation	include in MSCCS with edits; consider for CWE

Review Summary

Minor syntax violations in the writeup, though these are easily
fixable.

Title does not include the name of the software.

The Exploit section may contain excessive details, showing multiple
potential consequences. It does not show how the malicious inputs
work through the vulnerable code.

Fix section has good details but could be split into additional
paragraphs for readability.

Conclusion is lengthy and contains new details that do not immediately
appear to be covered in references (e.g. "estimated 205,000 downloads
in six months").

Recommendation: could be approved with edits and additional
references. Also, this might be of interest to the CWE Team and/or
CWE's AI Working Group as an Observed or Demonstrative Example. Also,
this might serve as a low-level example of a new entry (or major
modification) related to "not running a component within the sandbox
that it provides," which might be a reflection of CWE-250, CWE-749, or
other CWEs.

Case Study Structure

• writeup follows "Case Study Structure" recommendations without significant errors

Case Study Selection

• CVE
  • CVE ID clearly identified
  • CVE ID follows correct ID syntax
  • CVE is sufficiently recent
  • issue has been fixed
• Detailed reference(s)
  • vulnerable source code available
  • fixed source code available
  • code is properly licensed to be made public
  • (preferred) articles about exploitation

Case Study Contents

Title

• not too vague
• not too technical
• typically follows: <Weakness/Exploit Type> In <Software Name>
• generally between 4 and 6 words
• all caps

Introduction

• typically one paragraph
• issue and consequences in first sentence or two
• weakness type, possibly including position in Top 25
• sentence introducing the software application
• scope of the case study

Software

• has Name
  • include vendor name if applicable
  • avoid version numbers (in this field)
• has Language
• has URL (typically on GitHub if open source)

Weakness

• cites appropriate CWE ID and name
• one to two paragraphs long
• does not discuss the actual vulnerable code
• does not refer to the real software

Vulnerability

• CVE ID listed at the beginning
• discuss what the affected software is used for
• Code walk-through
  • calls out specific lines with language like "On line 123 ..."
  • calls out specific variables/inputs
  • includes "vulnerable file:" label and filename
  • follows "fenced code block" formatting
  • only cites source code that is necessary to the weakness
  • uses "..." to skip multiple lines of irrelevant source code
  • avoids exploit details

Exploit

• explain how the vulnerability is/was exploited and the consequences
• lists relevant CAPEC ID (if available)
• typically one to three paragraphs in length; could be longer with complex exploits
• when available, shows how certain inputs drive the exploit and how it works through the code

Fix

• describes how the weakness was fixed
• focuses only on the changes related to the weakness
• code follows "fenced code block" formatting
• includes "fixed file:" label and filename
• uses ```diff construct to highlight the diff

Prevention

• provides enough detail for the reader to implement the suggestions
• includes relevant secure coding practices
• includes mechanisms of identification e.g. tools
• typically a few paragraphs long

Conclusion

• brief summary of the case study (1 to 2 paragraphs long)
• avoids any new information

References

• name/URL of software page
• name/URL of the CVE
• name/URL of the CWE(s)
• name/URL of the CAPEC(s)
• name/URL of vendor's vuln report
• (if possible) name/URL of the specific code commit with the fix
• name/URL of any article that helped inform the case study
• no unusual/unexpected claims, or backed up by references
• (if available) name/URL for any foundational tutorial or best practice guide
• avoids listing all possible references

Contributors

• credits significant contributors
• includes original creator and reviewer(s)

Images/Diagrams (Optional)

• helps the reader understand a complex topic
• typically 0 to 2 images; no fixed rule