Skip to content
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -96,6 +96,30 @@ The mitigation planning should be done in two layers:
as developer and B2B APIs). They tend to be an easy target for attackers
because they often don't implement all the required protection mechanisms.

### Asynchronous Agent Mutation & Business Flow Drift

In agent-driven and workflow-automation architectures, background agents may mutate sensitive business objects after initial authorization checks. This creates a new class of business-flow abuse where state changes occur outside the original security context.

#### Example Abuse Scenario

1. A user submits a legitimate request to update a non-sensitive field.
2. An autonomous background agent enriches or modifies the object asynchronously.
3. The agent applies restricted fields such as approval flags, role attributes, or workflow states.
4. The system commits unauthorized business-state transitions without any further user interaction.

#### Why This Happens

- Authorization is enforced only at the synchronous API layer.
- Agents reuse service tokens with broader privileges.
- Business-flow validation is bypassed in background job processing.

#### Mitigations

- Enforce authorization on every write boundary, including background jobs and message queues.
- Prevent agents from reusing user authorization contexts.
- Implement strict server-side field allow-lists for all asynchronous mutations.
- Log and alert on cross-workflow state transitions initiated by agents.

## References

### OWASP
Expand Down
22 changes: 22 additions & 0 deletions editions/2023/en/0xa7-server-side-request-forgery.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -142,6 +142,28 @@ can view the credentials of the cloud environment.
* Validate and sanitize all client-supplied input data.
* Do not send raw responses to clients.

### Agent-Driven Replay & Rebinding SSRF Risk

Modern agentic systems often store or replay previously validated URLs across tasks. This creates a new SSRF risk class where:

- A URL is validated once, then reused later when DNS records or routing context have changed.
- Autonomous agents fetch resources based on historical state rather than real-time authorization context.
- Trusted internal callbacks are rebound to attacker-controlled infrastructure after task completion.

#### Example Abuse Scenario

1. An agent validates a webhook URL during onboarding.
2. The domain later expires or is repointed by an attacker.
3. The agent replays the stored URL during a scheduled task.
4. The backend performs a trusted internal fetch to attacker infrastructure.

#### Mitigations

- Re-validate all agent-stored URLs before every execution.
- Bind allowed fetch destinations using certificate pinning or static IP allowlists.
- Enforce short-lived trust windows for stored URLs.
- Log and alert on changes in DNS resolution for previously trusted domains.

## References

### OWASP
Expand Down