Record summary
A quick snapshot of what this page covers.
Attack context
How this AI attack works in practice.
Adversaries may attempt to take advantage of a weakness in an Internet-facing computer or program using software, data, or commands in order to cause unintended or unanticipated behavior. The weakness in the system can be a bug, a glitch, or a design vulnerability. These applications are often websites, but can include databases (like SQL), standard services (like SMB or SSH), network device administration and management protocols (like SNMP and Smart Install), and any other applications with Internet accessible open sockets, such as web servers and related services.
- ATLAS ID
- AML.T0049
- ATT&CK external ID
- T1190
- Priority score
- 115
Mitigations
Defenses that may help against this attack.
Case studies
Examples from public reports and exercises.
Exposed ClawdBot Control Interfaces Leads to Credential Access and Execution
A security researcher identified hundreds of exposed ClawdBot control interfaces on the public internet. ClawdBot (now OpenClaw) “is a personal AI assistant you run on your own devices. It answers you on the channels you already use … , plus extension channels. … It can speak and listen on macOS/iOS/Android, and can render a live Canvas you control.”[<sup>\[1\]</sup>][1] The researcher was able to access credentials to a variety of connected applications via ClawdBot’s configuration file. They were also able to invoke ClawdBot’s skills by prompting it via the chat interface, leading to root access in the container.
The researcher searched Shodan[<sup>\[2\]</sup>][2] to identify Clawdbot instances exposed on the public internet, some without authentication enabled. The researcher demonstrated that the ClawdBot’s authentication mechanism could be bypassed due to a proxy misconfiguration.
With access to ClawdBot’s control interface, they were then able to access ClawdBot’s configuration, which contained credentials to a variety of other services. Across various exposed instances of ClawdBot, they identified Anthropic API Keys, Telegram Bot Tokens, Slack Oauth Credentials, and Signal Device Linking URIs. The researcher prompted ClawdBot directly via the chat interface, which led to exposure of its system prompt. They were also able to get ClawdBot to execute commands via it’s bash skill, which at least in once instance led to root access in the ClawdBot container.
The researcher noted a broad range of other impacts they could have had with this level of access, including:
- Manipulation of user chat history with the ClawdBot AI agent
- Exfiltration of conversation histories of any connected messaging services
- Impersonation of users by sending messages on their behalf via connected messaging services
References
LLMSmith: RCE Vulnerabilities in LLM-Integrated Applications
Researchers identified 20 remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities across 11 different LLM frameworks. They discovered applications deployed on the public internet built using these LLM frameworks and demonstrated the RCE vulnerabilities could be exploited using prompt injection.
The 11 LLM frameworks the researchers evaluated were: LangChain, LlamaIndex, Pandas-ai, Langflow, Pandas-llm, Auto-GPT, Griptape, Lagent, MetaGPT, vanna, and langroid.
LLM Jacking
The Sysdig Threat Research Team discovered that malicious actors utilized stolen credentials to gain access to cloud-hosted large language models (LLMs). The actors covertly gathered information about which models were enabled on the cloud service and created a reverse proxy for LLMs that would allow them to provide model access to cybercriminals.
The Sysdig researchers identified tools used by the unknown actors that could target a broad range of cloud services including AI21 Labs, Anthropic, AWS Bedrock, Azure, ElevenLabs, MakerSuite, Mistral, OpenAI, OpenRouter, and GCP Vertex AI. Their technical analysis represented in the procedure below looked at at Amazon CloudTrail logs from the Amazon Bedrock service.
The Sysdig researchers estimated that the worst-case financial harm for the unauthorized use of a single Claude 2.x model could be up to $46,000 a day.
Update as of April 2025: This attack is ongoing and evolving. This case study only covers the initial reporting from Sysdig.
AI Model Tampering via Supply Chain Attack
Researchers at Trend Micro, Inc. used service indexing portals and web searching tools to identify over 8,000 misconfigured private container registries exposed on the internet. Approximately 70% of the registries also had overly permissive access controls that allowed write access. In their analysis, the researchers found over 1,000 unique AI models embedded in private container images within these open registries that could be pulled without authentication.
This exposure could allow adversaries to download, inspect, and modify container contents, including sensitive AI model files. This is an exposure of valuable intellectual property which could be stolen by an adversary. Compromised images could also be pushed to the registry, leading to a supply chain attack, allowing malicious actors to compromise the integrity of AI models used in production systems.
ShadowRay
Ray is an open-source Python framework for scaling production AI workflows. Ray's Job API allows for arbitrary remote execution by design. However, it does not offer authentication, and the default configuration may expose the cluster to the internet. Researchers at Oligo discovered that Ray clusters have been actively exploited for at least seven months. Adversaries can use victim organization's compute power and steal valuable information. The researchers estimate the value of the compromised machines to be nearly 1 billion USD.
Five vulnerabilities in Ray were reported to Anyscale, the maintainers of Ray. Anyscale promptly fixed four of the five vulnerabilities. However, the fifth vulnerability CVE-2023-48022 remains disputed. Anyscale maintains that Ray's lack of authentication is a design decision, and that Ray is meant to be deployed in a safe network environment. The Oligo researchers deem this a "shadow vulnerability" because in disputed status, the CVE does not show up in static scans.
Source
Where this page information comes from.
Original source
Original source links
Open the public records and source datasets used for this page.