4 ms·

that's reductive. this is effectively a disclosure. do you consider every disclosure write up an "ad" for the security researcher?

raincole 1y ago
I do if their "mitigation" looks like this: > 1 · Deploy an MCP Guard (three-command setup) > A guardrail can help protect every tool call with a protective layer that blocks malicious or out-of-policy instructions in real time. Here is how to install the GA MCP guard which is open-source and requires no billing. > $ pip install generalanalysis # install the guard > $ ga login # browser-based auth > $ ga configure > MCP Guard protection enabled
- Tokumei-no-hito 1y ago
  so if a security researcher comes up with a free open source patch which, presently, is the only available solution then they should just keep that to themselves? it's an evolving field. if anthropic doesn't have a solution should we just not do anything?
  - raincole 1y ago
    What this "open source patch" does is to set up a proxy server on your machine and route your requests to their server first for moderation. Do I really need to explain why this is a bad idea? Honestly this post should be flagged by HN as phishing attempt, if anything. (But it won't, as this company is YC-backed...) > if anthropic doesn't have a solution should we just not do anything? A solution to what? This article describes a theoretical scenario where a theoretical user misuses a system. If you give LLM tool some permissions, it would do things that are permitted but probably not expected by you. It's a given. It's like asking Amazon to have a "solution" for users who posts their AWS access tokens online. The real problem here is the very existence of Stripe MCP. It's a ridiculous idea. I'm all for raising awareness of that, but it's not an excuse to fearmonger readers into adding yet another AI tool onto their tech stack.
- Tokumei-no-hito 1y ago
  great point. sorry i didn't realize it was reaching out to their servers. that's no longer equivalent to an open patch.

raincole 1y ago

I do if their "mitigation" looks like this: > 1 · Deploy an MCP Guard (three-command setup) > A guardrail can help protect every tool call with a protective layer that blocks malicious or out-of-policy instructions in real time. Here is how to install the GA MCP guard which is open-source and requires no billing. > $ pip install generalanalysis # install the guard > $ ga login # browser-based auth > $ ga configure > MCP Guard protection enabled

Tokumei-no-hito 1y ago
so if a security researcher comes up with a free open source patch which, presently, is the only available solution then they should just keep that to themselves? it's an evolving field. if anthropic doesn't have a solution should we just not do anything?
- raincole 1y ago
  What this "open source patch" does is to set up a proxy server on your machine and route your requests to their server first for moderation. Do I really need to explain why this is a bad idea? Honestly this post should be flagged by HN as phishing attempt, if anything. (But it won't, as this company is YC-backed...) > if anthropic doesn't have a solution should we just not do anything? A solution to what? This article describes a theoretical scenario where a theoretical user misuses a system. If you give LLM tool some permissions, it would do things that are permitted but probably not expected by you. It's a given. It's like asking Amazon to have a "solution" for users who posts their AWS access tokens online. The real problem here is the very existence of Stripe MCP. It's a ridiculous idea. I'm all for raising awareness of that, but it's not an excuse to fearmonger readers into adding yet another AI tool onto their tech stack.
Tokumei-no-hito 1y ago
great point. sorry i didn't realize it was reaching out to their servers. that's no longer equivalent to an open patch.