Spaces:
Running
Visualization idea: map attacks to downstream sinks
The attack-map framing is useful. One visualization that would help practitioners is mapping prompt/jailbreak examples to the downstream sink they threaten.
For example:
- render sink: HTML, Markdown, email, ticket body
- query sink: SQL, search DSL, vector filter
- execution sink: shell, subprocess, package install, CI job
- agent sink: tool arguments, MCP request, memory write, retrieval chunk for a later turn
That makes prompt security feel less abstract. The same text can be harmless as a rejected chat response and dangerous if it becomes a tool argument or durable memory. We have been using this mental model when testing Armorer Guard-style runtime scans.
Thank you very much for this feedback, which aligns directly with the logic I've been trying to formalize. The prompt → downstream sink mapping is exactly the bridge that's often missing between offensive analysis and application-layer defense: that's where the distinction plays out between an output that's merely undesirable and one that's actually dangerous once injected into an execution, query, or agent-memory context.
I'll take your remarks on board and integrate this sink taxonomy (render / query / execution / agent) into the next iteration — it strikes me as particularly relevant for clarifying the attack surface on the agentic and MCP side, which is precisely where the boundary between response and action becomes critical.
The field feedback on Armorer Guard-style runtime scans is also very valuable; I'd be glad to discuss it further if you're open to a more in-depth exchange.
Thanks again for the quality of the feedback.