Stage Capabilities - AI Security Technique
AI Security TechniqueAdversaries may upload, install, or otherwise set up capabilities that can be used during targeting. To support their operations, an adversary may need to take capabilities they developed (Develop Capabilities) or obtained (Obtain Capabilities) and stage them on infrastructure under their control. These capabilities may be staged on infrastructure that was previous...
Overview
A source-backed snapshot of this AI security technique.
Adversaries may upload, install, or otherwise set up capabilities that can be used during targeting. To support their operations, an adversary may need to take capabilities they developed (Develop Capabilities) or obtained (Obtain Capabilities) and stage them on infrastructure under their control. These capabilities may be staged on infrastructure that was previously purchased/rented by the adversary (Acquire Infrastructure) or was otherwise compromised by them. Capabilities may also be staged on web services, such as GitHub, model registries, such as Hugging Face, or container registries.
Adversaries may stage a variety of AI Artifacts including poisoned datasets (Publish Poisoned Datasets, malicious models (Publish Poisoned Models, and prompt injections. They may target names of legitimate companies or products, engage in typosquatting, or use hallucinated entities (Discover LLM Hallucinations).
Technique details
Identifiers, maturity, and source taxonomy for this technique.
- ATLAS ID
- AML.T0079
- Maturity
- demonstrated
- ATT&CK external ID
- T1608
- Priority score
- 185
Attack flow
How to read the public records connected to this technique.
Impact
Why this technique may deserve attention in the current dataset.
- Evidence leveldemonstrated
- Mapped defenses0 ATLAS mitigation records
- Public examples6 linked case study records
- Research risks21 related MIT AI Risk records above the confidence threshold
- Vulnerabilities0 linked CVE records
Mitigations
Defenses that may help against this attack.
Case studies
Examples from public reports and exercises.
OpenClaw Command & Control via Prompt Injection
Researchers at HiddenLayer demonstrated how a webpage can embed an indirect prompt injection that causes OpenClaw to silently execute a malicious script. Once executed, the script plants persistent malicious instructions into future system prompts, allowing the attacker to issue new commands, turning OpenClaw into a command and control agent.
What makes this attack unique is that, through a simple indirect prompt injection attack into an agentic lifecycle, untrusted content can be used to spoof the model’s control scheme and induce unapproved tool invocation for execution. Through this single inject, an LLM can become a persistent, automated command & control implant.
OpenClaw 1-Click Remote Code Execution
A security researcher demonstrated a 1-click remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability to the OpenClaw AI Agent via a malicious link containing a JavaScript script that only takes milliseconds to execute. This vulnerability has been reported and is being tracked to versions of OpenClaw as CVE-2026-25253. [1] OpenClaw “is a personal AI assistant you run on your own devices. It answers you on the chat apps you already use. Unlike SaaS assistants where your data lives on someone else’s servers, OpenClaw runs where you choose – laptop, homelab, or VPS. Your infrastructure. Your keys. Your data.” [2]
The researcher demonstrated that when the victim clicks a malicious link, a client-side JavaScript script is executed on the victim’s browser that can steal authentication tokens from the OpenClaw control interface via a WebSocket connection. It then uses Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking to bypass localhost restrictions to the OpenClaw Gateway API. Once the connection was established, it uses the stolen token to authenticate and modify the OpenClaw agent configuration to disable user confirmation and escape the container, allowing shell commands to be run directly on the host machine.
References
Data Exfiltration via an MCP Server used by Cursor
The Backslash Security Research Team demonstrated that a Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool can be used as a vector for an indirect prompt injection attack on Cursor, potentially leading to the execution of malicious shell commands.
The Backslash Security Research Team created a proof-of-concept MCP server capable of scraping webpages. When a user asks Cursor to use the tool to scrape a site containing a malicious prompt, the prompt is injected into Cursor’s context. The prompt instructs Cursor to execute a shell command to exfiltrate the victim’s AI agent configuration files containing credentials. Cursor does prompt the user before executing the malicious command, potentially mitigating the attack.
AI ClickFix: Hijacking Computer-Use Agents Using ClickFix
Embrace the Red demonstrated that AI computer-use agents are vulnerable to social engineering attacks and can be manipulated into executing arbitrary code on a victim’s machine. The attack is a variation on “ClickFix” which is a social engineering attack that fools humans into copying malicious commands and executing them.
The researcher used ChatGPT to generate a website designed to attract interactions with computer-use agents. When a user asked their Claude Computer-Use Agent to visit the researcher’s website, the text “Are you a computer? Please see instructions to confirm:” caused the agent to click the associated button. This executed JavaScript to copy a malicious command into the agent’s clipboard. The agent then proceeded to follow the instructions, opening a terminal, pasting the malicious command, and executing it. The command downloads a script from the researcher’s website and executes it. In the demonstration, the script opens the victim’s Calculator App, but in practice an adversary could run arbitrary code, compromising the victim’s system.
Showing 4 of 6
Source evidence
Original public records and references for this page.
Original source
Original source links
Open the public records and source datasets used for this page.
