FEAT: Cross-principal memory leakage scenario for agents with shared long-term memory
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 2 Tagen
Dieses Issue hat noch niemand übernommen.
Bewertung
- Schwierigkeit
- 5/5
- Geschätzter Aufwand
- Über eine Woche
- Anfängerfreundlichkeit
- 18/100
Rechercherichtung
The payload names the existing Leakage scenario and the substring/regex scorers as reference points, but no file paths. Start by reading how Leakage and those scorers are built, and ask the maintainers how multi-principal targets should be modelled before writing code. Done means a two-phase scenario that seeds canaries as one identity, probes as another, and reports leak rate per probe strategy.
Vom Indexierungsmodell aus dem Issue-Text verfasst.
Beschreibung
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The Leakage scenario tests whether a model discloses training data, PII or confidential
information. It doesn't cover a growing agent-specific path: data that one user was entitled
to see is written into a shared long-term memory (e.g. a workspace-level store), and later
retrieved for a different user who is not entitled to it.
In this pattern, each individual check passes. The source query is authorized for user A,
the memory read is authorized by namespace or workspace membership for user B, and keyword
input/output filters pass because the second user's questions don't use restricted terms.
The leak exists only across sessions and principals, so single-conversation probing doesn't
surface it.
Two public descriptions of the pattern are in the OWASP GenAI Data Security Initiative's
trace dataset (memory_read_write category): an unintentional variant
(GenAI-Security-Project/GenAI-Data-Security-Initiative#102) and an adversarial variant where
a member deliberately words queries to extract restricted derived items (#104). Related
published work on query-only extraction from agent memory: Wang et al., "Unveiling Privacy
Risks in LLM Agent Memory" (arXiv:2502.13172).
Describe the solution you'd like
A scenario that runs in two phases against an agent target that supports per-user identity:
- Seed: as principal A, send prompts that cause the agent to read restricted data and
persist something derived from it. Restricted values are unique canary tokens, so leakage
can be detected deterministically. - Probe: as principal B, who lacks the entitlement, send benign and adversarial
(paraphrased, keyword-free, verbatim-recall) prompts drawn from a seed dataset. - Score: a true/false scorer that flags any of A's canaries in B's responses. This could
build on the existing substring/regex scorers, with no LLM judge needed.
Output: leak rate per probe strategy, which shows whether keyword filtering vs.
entitlement-aware memory reads actually stops the path.
Describe alternatives you've considered, if relevant
- Extending
Leakagedirectly. It's model-focused and single-principal, so a separate
scenario (or a clearly separate technique set) seems cleaner, but I'm happy to follow your
preference. - Shipping it as an external example notebook rather than a built-in scenario.
Additional context
I'd like to implement this if it fits PyRIT's direction, starting with the seed dataset and
the canary scorer, then the scenario. Guidance on how you'd want multi-principal targets
modelled would be very helpful before I start.
Disclosure: I contributed the two OWASP traces referenced above and have published on
lineage-aware access control for agent memory.
- Vorherrschende Sprache
- Python
- Sterne
- 4.6k
- Forks
- 944
- Ø Merge
- 2 T. 18 Std.
- Gemergte PRs (30 T.)
- 369
Entwicklungsumgebung
Startet den Dev-Container des Projekts im Browser, mit Ihrem eigenen GitHub-Konto.
- Kein Dockerfile und keine Docker-Compose-Datei
- Hat eine Pull-Request-Vorlage
- Kein Beitragsleitfaden
Erste Schritte
- Lesen Sie das ganze Issue und danach den Beitragsleitfaden des Projekts.
- Schreiben Sie ins Issue, dass Sie es übernehmen — das erspart doppelte Arbeit.
- Forken Sie das Repository und arbeiten Sie in einem Branch.
- Öffnen Sie einen Pull Request, der die Issue-Nummer nennt.
Mehr aus microsoft/PyRIT
-
BUG: label queries only return the final conversation of an attackEvtl. vergeben @u7k4rs6 hat das vor 3 Tagen übernommen. Offen
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 85/100
microsoft/PyRIT#3095 · 4 Kommentare · 1 zugewiesene Person ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 2 Tagen
-
BUG Configuration keeps runtime-status errors after polling recoversEvtl. vergeben @joeyvictorino hat das vor 6 Tagen übernommen. OffenBug: triage GUI help wanted
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 86/100
microsoft/PyRIT#2868 · 6 Kommentare ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 2 Tagen
-
FEAT: Support PDF and file inputs via `binary_path` in OpenAI chat and response targetsEvtl. vergeben @PranavD2905 hat das heute übernommen. Offenfeature-request help wanted
Schwierigkeit 4/5 3-5 Tage Anfängerfreundlichkeit 35/100
microsoft/PyRIT#3274 · 1 Kommentar ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 2 Tagen
-
Schwierigkeit 3/5 1-2 Tage Anfängerfreundlichkeit 35/100
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 2 Tagen
-
Schwierigkeit 4/5 3-5 Tage Anfängerfreundlichkeit 34/100
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 2 Tagen
Alle Issues in microsoft/PyRIT
Ähnliche Issues
-
bot-triaged module: LrScheduler module: optimizer triaged
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 70/100
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag
-
documentation glm5 llm-model
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 78/100
vllm-project/vllm-ascend#19062 ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag
-
author-page correction
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 68/100
acl-org/acl-anthology#10496 · 1 Kommentar ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag
-
Issue Type: Bug Report
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 82/100
celery/celery#10875 · 1 Kommentar ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag
-
enhancement good first issue
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 76/100
SasanLabs/VulnerableApp#836 ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag