Mmcp.market

assessing-vector-and-embedding-weaknesses skill

by mukul975·mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills·34k stars·Apache-2.0

Test RAG vector stores (Pinecone, Qdrant, Weaviate, Chroma, pgvector,

A100/100content scan

Is the assessing-vector-and-embedding-weaknesses skill safe?

Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 5 files in the folder on 2026-09-28.

No findings.

Install the assessing-vector-and-embedding-weaknesses skill

A skill is a folder. Copy it into your agent's skills folder and the agent loads it when the task matches its description.

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills.git /tmp/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills
cp -r /tmp/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills/skills/assessing-vector-and-embedding-weaknesses ~/.claude/skills/assessing-vector-and-embedding-weaknesses
available in every project

In the Claude apps, zip the folder and upload it from the Skills settings. The folder on GitHub

The instructions your agent would load

SKILL.md as published, without the frontmatter. Read it on GitHub

Assessing Vector and Embedding Weaknesses

Authorized use only: These tests interact with vector stores and embedding models in RAG systems you own or are authorized to assess. Embedding inversion and cross-tenant probing against systems you do not control may expose third-party data and is prohibited without authorization.

Overview

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems convert documents into embedding vectors stored in a vector database (Pinecone, Qdrant, Weaviate, Chroma, pgvector, FAISS) and retrieve the nearest vectors to ground LLM responses. OWASP LLM08:2025 Vector and Embedding Weaknesses covers the security risks unique to this layer:

  • Embedding inversion — embeddings are not one-way. A trained inversion model (or a black-box reconstruction attack) can recover substantial portions of the original text from its vector, leaking source documents (maps to MITRE ATLAS AML.T0024.001 Invert ML Model).
  • Membership inference — querying whether a specific record contributed to the corpus (AML.T0024.000).
  • Cross-tenant / multi-tenant leakage — when one namespace/collection is shared or filter isolation is missing, a tenant retrieves another tenant's chunks.
  • Knowledge-base poisoning — an attacker who can write to the corpus inserts crafted chunks that dominate retrieval (high cosine similarity to expected queries) and carry indirect prompt-injection payloads.
  • Retrieval manipulation — adversarial documents tuned to be retrieved for many unrelated queries ("retrieval hijacking").

The parent technique is AML.T0024 — Exfiltration via ML Inference API: an attacker uses legitimate inference/query access to exfiltrate data (source text via inversion, membership, or model extraction). This skill provides a repeatable assessment of all five weakness classes.

When to Use

  • During a security assessment of any RAG / vector-search application (OWASP LLM08 coverage).
  • When a vector store is multi-tenant and you must prove namespace/metadata isolation.
  • When the corpus accepts user-supplied or third-party documents (poisoning surface).
  • When the embedding endpoint is externally reachable (inversion/membership surface).
  • When validating retrieval-filtering controls before go-live.

Prerequisites

  • Authorization and scope covering the target embedding endpoint and vector store.
  • Python 3.10+.
  • Read (and, for poisoning tests, write) access to a test collection — never the production corpus.
# Vector DB clients + embeddings + similarity tooling
python -m pip install numpy scikit-learn sentence-transformers
python -m pip install qdrant-client chromadb pinecone-client weaviate-client
# (optional) text-embedding inversion research baseline
python -m pip install vec2text

Objectives

  • Measure embedding-inversion exposure on the target embedding model.
  • Run a membership-inference probe against the corpus.
  • Test multi-tenant isolation (namespace, metadata filter, RBAC) for cross-tenant leakage.
  • Inject benign poisoned chunks into a test collection and measure retrieval dominance.
  • Detect indirect prompt-injection content surviving in retrieved chunks.
  • Recommend controls: tenant-scoped filters, content validation, embedding-access limits.

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Workflow

Step 1: Inventory the RAG pipeline

Document the embedding model + dimensions, the vector store and its tenancy model, the chunking strategy, retrieval top_k and similarity metric (cosine/dot/L2), and any metadata filters applied at query time.

# Example: inspect a Qdrant collection
from qdrant_client import QdrantClient
client = QdrantClient(url="http://localhost:6333")
info = client.get_collection("docs")
print(info.config.params.vectors)   # size + distance metric
print(client.count("docs"))         # corpus size

Step 2: Test embedding-inversion exposure

Embeddings of similar text are close; an attacker with the embedding endpoint can iteratively reconstruct text whose embedding matches a target vector. Measure how much a nearest-neighbour-in-embedding-space recovers, using cosine similarity between candidate reconstructions and the target.

import numpy as np
from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer
from sklearn.metrics.pairwise import cosine_similarity

model = SentenceTransformer("all-MiniLM-L6-v2")
secret = "Patient John Doe, MRN 553120, diagnosed with hypertension."
target_vec = model.encode([secret])

# Attacker has only target_vec and the embedding endpoint. Hill-climb candidate text.
candidates = [
    "Patient name and medical record number with a diagnosis.",
    "John Doe medical record hypertension diagnosis",
    "Patient John Doe MRN diagnosed hypertension",
]
cand_vecs = model.encode(candidates)
sims = cosine_similarity(target_vec, cand_vecs)[0]
for c, s in sorted(zip(candidates, sims), key=lambda x: -x[1]):
    print(f"{s:.3f}  {c}")
# High similarity for a near-verbatim guess => inversion risk is real for this model.

For a research-grade reconstruction baseline, vec2text can be used against compatible embedding models to demonstrate full-text recovery.

Step 3: Membership inference

Determine whether a specific document is in the corpus by measuring the top-1 retrieval similarity for an exact-quote query: in-corpus items return a markedly higher max similarity than out-of-corpus controls.

def membership_score(client, collection, embed, text):
    vec = embed([text])[0].tolist()
    hits = client.search(collection_name=collection, query_vector=vec, limit=1)
    return hits[0].score if hits else 0.0

in_corpus = membership_score(client, "docs", model.encode, "<exact quote from a known chunk>")
control  = membership_score(client, "docs", model.encode, "An unrelated random sentence.")
print(f"in-corpus={in_corpus:.3f}  control={control:.3f}  delta={in_corpus-control:.3f}")
# A large positive delta indicates the item is in the corpus (membership leak).

Step 4: Test multi-tenant isolation

Confirm that tenant B cannot retrieve tenant A's chunks. Issue tenant-B-authenticated queries that should be filtered, and verify no tenant-A tenant_id appears in results.

# Query as tenant B; expect ONLY tenant_id == "B" results.
from qdrant_client.models import Filter, FieldCondition, MatchValue

vec = model.encode(["confidential salary information"])[0].tolist()
hits = client.search(
    collection_name="docs",
    query_vector=vec,
    limit=10,
    query_filter=Filter(must=[FieldCondition(key="tenant_id", match=MatchValue(value="B"))]),
)
leaked = [h for h in hits if h.payload.get("tenant_id") != "B"]
print("CROSS-TENANT LEAK" if leaked else "isolation OK", "->", len(leaked), "foreign rows")

# Critical test: repeat WITHOUT the filter to confirm the server, not the client,
# enforces isolation. If unfiltered queries return tenant A data, isolation is client-side only.
hits_nofilter = client.search(collection_name="docs", query_vector=vec, limit=10)
print("server-side isolation FAILS" if any(h.payload.get("tenant_id") != "B" for h in hits_nofilter) else "OK")

Step 5: Knowledge-base poisoning (test collection only)

Insert a benign poisoned chunk crafted to be retrieved for many unrelated queries, then measure how often it appears in top_k.

from qdrant_client.models import PointStruct

# Benign marker payload (no real injection) to measure retrieval dominance.
poison = "POISON-CANARY. " + " ".join(
    ["password reset billing refund account login support error help"] * 8
)
client.upsert("docs_test", points=[
    PointStruct(id=999999, vector=model.encode([poison])[0].tolist(),
                payload={"tenant_id": "B", "source": "poison-test"})
])

queries = ["how do I get a refund", "reset my password", "what is the weather"]
for q in queries:
    hits = client.search("docs_test", model.encode([q])[0].tolist(), limit=5)
    dominated = any(h.payload.get("source") == "poison-test" for h in hits)
    print(f"{'POISON in top5' if dominated else 'clean'}: {q}")

Step 6: Detect indirect prompt injection in retrieved chunks

Scan retrieved chunk text for injection markers before it is concatenated into the prompt.

import re
INJECTION_PATTERNS = [
    r"ignore (all|previous|the above) instructions",
    r"system prompt", r"you are now", r"disregard", r"</?(system|instructions)>",
]
def chunk_is_injection(text):
    low = text.lower()
    return [p for p in INJECTION_PATTERNS if re.search(p, low)]

for hit in client.search("docs", model.encode(["help"])[0].tolist(), limit=10):
    flags = chunk_is_injection(hit.payload.get("text", ""))
    if flags:
        print("INDIRECT INJECTION in chunk", hit.id, flags)

Step 7: Report and remediate

  • Inversion/membership: rate-limit and authenticate the embedding endpoint; avoid returning raw similarity scores; restrict who can query embeddings.
  • Cross-tenant: enforce tenant filters server-side (separate collections/namespaces per tenant where feasible); never rely on client-supplied filters.
  • Poisoning: validate and provenance-tag every ingested chunk; scan inputs for injection; cap any single source's share of retrieval.
  • Indirect injection: sanitize retrieved chunks and apply output guardrails (see defending-llms-with-guardrails).

Tools and Resources

Validation Criteria

  • [ ] RAG pipeline inventoried (embedding model, store, tenancy, metric, top_k, filters).
  • [ ] Embedding-inversion exposure measured and rated.
  • [ ] Membership-inference delta computed for in-corpus vs control items.
  • [ ] Multi-tenant isolation tested both with and without client filters (server-side enforcement confirmed).
  • [ ] Poisoning dominance measured in a test collection only.
  • [ ] Retrieved chunks scanned for indirect-injection content.
  • [ ] Findings reported with remediation for each weakness class.
  • [ ] No production corpus modified during the assessment.

More skills from mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills

  • Aabusing-dpapi-for-credential-accessExtract and decrypt Windows DPAPI-protected secrets (Credential Manager, browser logins/cookies, Wi-Fi credentials, KeePass keys) online or offline using SharpDPAPI, SharpChrome, Mimikatz, or Impacket's dpapi.py, including domain-wide decryption via the DPAPI backup key. Use during authorized red-team credential-access engagements after gaining a foothold or when triaging DPAPI blobs pulled from a host.
  • Aabusing-shadow-credentials-for-privescTake over Active Directory accounts by writing attacker-controlled public keys to msDS-KeyCredentialLink (Shadow Credentials) with pyWhisker, Whisker, or Certipy, then authenticate via PKINIT to recover the target's NT hash without a password reset. Use when BloodHound shows GenericWrite/GenericAll/AddKeyCredentialLink over a target, as a stealthier alternative to ForceChangePassword, during authorized red-team engagements.
  • Aachieving-cmmc-level-2-compliancePrepare a defense-contractor environment for CMMC Level 2 certification: scope CUI and FCI, implement the 110 NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 security requirements across 14 families, compute the SPRS score with the DoD Assessment Methodology, manage a compliant POA&M, and ready the organization for a C3PAO assessment. Use when an organization handles Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) under a DoD contract, when a contract carries DFARS clause 252.204-7012/7019/7020/7021, when preparing for or responding to a CMMC assessment, when computing or improving an SPRS score, when building a System Security Plan or POA&M for 800-171, or when scoping which systems are in the CUI boundary. Keywords: CMMC, CMMC Level 2, NIST 800-171, SP 800-171 Rev 2, CUI, FCI, SPRS, DFARS 7012, C3PAO, POA&M, System Security Plan, DoD Assessment Methodology, 110 controls, defense industrial base, DIB, FedRAMP equivalency.
  • Aacquiring-disk-image-with-dd-and-dcflddCreate forensically sound bit-for-bit disk images with dd or dcfldd on a Linux forensic workstation, preserving evidence integrity through hash verification (MD5/SHA) during acquisition. Use when imaging a suspect drive, USB device, or memory card for investigation, preserving volatile disk evidence during incident response, or producing a verified copy for legal or law-enforcement proceedings before any destructive analysis.
  • Aanalyzing-active-directory-acl-abuseDetect dangerous ACL misconfigurations in Active Directory using ldap3
  • Aanalyzing-android-malware-with-apktoolPerform static analysis of Android APK malware using apktool for resource decompilation, jadx for Java source recovery, and androguard for manifest inspection, dangerous permission-combination detection, and identification of obfuscated code, dynamic code loading, and reflection-based API calls. Use to statically triage a suspicious APK without executing it or to build mobile malware detection rules.
  • Danalyzing-api-gateway-access-logs'Parses API Gateway access logs (AWS API Gateway, Kong, Nginx) to detect
  • Aanalyzing-apt-group-with-mitre-navigatorQuery ATT&CK data with attackcti, mitreattack-python, and stix2, then build MITRE ATT&CK Navigator layers and multi-layer heatmap overlays mapping one or more APT groups' TTPs for detection-gap analysis. Use to compare threat-actor technique coverage, find gaps in detection engineering, or produce Navigator visualizations for threat-intel reporting.
  • Aanalyzing-azure-activity-logs-for-threats'Queries Azure Monitor activity logs and sign-in logs via azure-monitor-query
  • Aanalyzing-bootkit-and-rootkit-samples'Analyzes bootkit and advanced rootkit malware infecting the Master
  • Aanalyzing-browser-forensics-with-hindsightParse Chromium-based browser databases with Hindsight to extract and correlate browsing history, downloads, cookies, cached content, autofill data, saved passwords, and extensions from Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi into a unified timeline (XLSX, JSON, or SQLite output). Use during incident response, insider-threat investigations, or criminal cases when you need to reconstruct a user's web activity from a browser profile.
  • Aanalyzing-campaign-attribution-evidenceSystematically evaluate cyber-campaign evidence to attribute an operation to a threat actor, using the Diamond Model and Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) to weigh infrastructure overlaps, TTP consistency, malware code similarity, and timing/language artifacts into confidence-weighted attribution assessments. Use when an incident investigation needs a defensible attribution confidence level.

All agent skills → · MCP servers