msd-core/docs/explanation/security-model.md

GSD Core security model

Explanation — This document describes why GSD Core has the security posture it does and how the layers fit together. It is not a reference for every hook parameter. For the /gsd-secure-phase command and its options, see Commands. For the implementation-level hook architecture, see Architecture § Hook System. For the org-wide security baseline (scanner controls, incident checklists, ownership model), see SECURITY.md.

---

Why AI-driven development needs a dedicated security posture

A conventional code editor does not execute arbitrary packages on your behalf. GSD Core does. The research → plan → execute pipeline automates the full path from "name a package" to "run npm install <package>", from "write a planning artifact" to "use that artifact as an LLM system prompt". Each automation step removes a human from the loop — and each removal is a potential attack surface.

GSD Core's security model is built around one organising principle: defence in depth. No single control is assumed to be perfect. Several overlapping layers each reduce a distinct class of risk, and together they make the attack surface substantially harder to exploit without eliminating it entirely. The honest summary at the end of this document explains what the system cannot protect against.

---

Layer 1 — Supply-chain protection: the Package Legitimacy Gate

The threat

AI models hallucinate package names. This is not a fringe failure mode: 2025 research documents roughly 20 % of AI-generated package references as hallucinated names that do not correspond to legitimate packages. A subset of those hallucinated names — approximately 43 % in the same research — recur consistently across prompts, meaning an attacker can observe which names AI tools commonly produce and pre-register those names on npm, PyPI, or crates.io with malicious post-install scripts. The technique is called slopsquatting.

The insidious quality of slopsquatting is that a hallucinated name that passes npm view looks legitimate. The registry entry proves only that someone registered the name — not that the package does what the AI said it does, not that it has any legitimate users, and not that its install scripts are safe. Without a gate, a hallucinated name would flow undetected through GSD's researcher → planner → executor pipeline and eventually run as npm install <attacker-package> on your machine.

How the gate works

The gate operates across three pipeline stages:

Research stage. When gsd-phase-researcher recommends external packages, it runs slopcheck install <pkgs> --json against each one. The results are written to a ## Package Legitimacy Audit table in RESEARCH.md. Packages tagged [SLOP] (high-confidence hallucination or attacker-registered) are stripped from RESEARCH.md entirely before the file is saved. They never reach the planner.

Planning stage. gsd-planner reads the Audit table. For any package tagged [SUS] (suspicious: newly registered, low download count, no source repository, or naming pattern close to a popular package) or [ASSUMED] (sourced from WebSearch rather than direct registry verification), the planner inserts a checkpoint:human-verify task before the install step. The checkpoint includes a direct link to the registry page and specific things to look for: maintainer history, issue-tracker activity, absence of suspicious install scripts.

Execution stage. If an install fails, gsd-executor surfaces a checkpoint and stops. It does not silently try an alternative package name — which could itself be malicious. This is an explicit rule in the executor's behaviour (RULE 3 in the executor agent definition).

Why WebSearch packages are always [ASSUMED]

Package names discovered through WebSearch are tagged [ASSUMED] regardless of whether npm view succeeds. A package that exists on the registry is not the same as a package that is safe to install. npm view proves registration, not legitimacy. The [ASSUMED] tag triggers the same human-verify checkpoint as [SUS], ensuring that any unverified web-discovered recommendation always gets a human review before installation.

Ecosystem coverage

The researcher uses registry-specific verification commands rather than a single generic check:

• Node.js: npm view
• Python: pip index versions
• Rust: cargo search

This covers cross-ecosystem hallucination, which occurs at roughly 9 % according to 2025 USENIX research — cases where an AI recommends a package that exists in one ecosystem but not the one actually in use.

Graceful degradation

If slopcheck is unavailable (not installed, or the pip install fails at research time), GSD applies the strictest possible fallback: every recommended package is tagged [ASSUMED], and the planner gates every install with a checkpoint:human-verify task. Research and planning proceed normally — the system never hard-fails on a missing tool dependency. This is intentionally stricter than the normal flow: slopcheck unavailability means every package install gets a human checkpoint.

The slopcheck tool is MIT-licensed and pip-installable. If it is ever abandoned, the [ASSUMED]-gate fallback ensures human-checkpoint coverage is maintained regardless.

---

Layer 2 — Prompt injection defences

The threat

GSD Core generates Markdown files that become LLM system prompts. The research pipeline reads external web content; the planning pipeline incorporates user-supplied text (--text-file, --prd); the execution pipeline writes planning artifacts that are later re-read as agent context. Any user-controlled text flowing into these artifacts is a potential indirect prompt injection vector — an attacker-controlled string that, once inside a system prompt, attempts to override the agent's instructions or exfiltrate information.

How the defences work

GSD Core addresses prompt injection at three levels.

Input validation (security.cjs). The gsd-core/bin/lib/security.cjs module is the central security utility. It provides:

• Path traversal prevention: user-supplied file paths (--text-file, --prd) are validated to resolve within the project directory, with macOS /var → /private/var symlink resolution handled explicitly
• Prompt injection detection: known injection patterns (role overrides, instruction bypasses, system tag injections) are scanned in user-supplied text before it enters any planning artifact
• Safe JSON parsing: a wrapper that prevents prototype-pollution attacks via crafted JSON payloads
• Shell argument validation: arguments passed to subshell commands are validated before use

Runtime hook: gsd-prompt-guard.js. This hook fires on every Write or Edit call that targets .planning/ files. It scans the content being written for the same injection patterns as security.cjs (a subset inlined directly into the hook for independence — the hook does not require() the module, so it runs even if the module path changes). Detection is advisory-only: the hook logs the finding but does not block the write. The rationale is that a false-positive block on a legitimate planning write would be more disruptive than a missed injection in a secondary scan layer.

Runtime hook: gsd-read-injection-scanner.js. This hook fires on the output of every Read tool call. It scans the content that was just read for injected instructions in untrusted content — catching cases where an attacker has embedded instructions in a file that GSD is about to incorporate into an agent's context.

CI scanner. prompt-injection-scan.test.cjs scans all agent, workflow, and command files for embedded injection vectors as part of the test suite. This catches injection attempts in the GSD source itself — for example, a supply-chain attack that modified a workflow file to add a role-override instruction.

Read Injection Scanner vs Prompt Guard

The two hooks cover complementary surfaces. gsd-prompt-guard.js watches writes to planning artifacts — it catches injection being planted. gsd-read-injection-scanner.js watches reads of any file — it catches injection being ingested from external content (a dependency's README, a third-party config file, a user-provided document). Together they bracket the ingest → store → re-read lifecycle.

---

Layer 3 — Repository and dependency integrity

Upstream of GSD's runtime behaviour, the open-gsd organisation enforces controls at the repository and package level. These are documented in full in docs/security/baseline.md and are summarised here for completeness.

Dependency integrity. All third-party dependencies are pinned via package-lock.json and verified against published checksums before install. A scripts/check-npm-integrity.cjs gate detects invalid versions, missing packages, and extraneous packages at CI time. This mitigates dependency confusion and typosquatting attacks against GSD's own dependencies.

Secret scanning. Every commit and PR is scanned for hardcoded secrets. Intentional test fixtures must be annotated with the project-standard exclusion grammar (see SECURITY.md for the annotation format). Un-annotated suppressions fail CI.

Locale-safe text scanning. Output and user-facing strings are scanned for Unicode homoglyphs, bidirectional override characters, and invisible Unicode — the class of attacks documented in CVE-2021-42574 ("Trojan Source") that can hide malicious content in diffs.

---

Trade-offs and limits

The security model described here meaningfully reduces the attack surface for AI-driven development. It does not eliminate supply-chain risk.

What the Package Legitimacy Gate reduces: The probability that a hallucinated or attacker-registered package reaches npm install without a human checkpoint. The [SLOP] gate removes high-confidence bad packages entirely; the [SUS] / [ASSUMED] gates require human review before execution. This substantially raises the cost of a successful slopsquatting attack.

What the Package Legitimacy Gate does not eliminate: A legitimate package that is later compromised (account takeover, dependency confusion in its own tree) is not caught by slopcheck, which checks registration signals at research time. Lock files and npm audit at the dependency-integrity layer are the controls for that class of attack.

What the prompt injection defences reduce: The probability that user-controlled text in planning artifacts successfully overrides agent instructions. Pattern-matching on known injection forms catches the common cases; novel jailbreaks or low-signal injections may pass undetected. The advisory-only posture means detection is logged but not blocked — a deliberate choice that preserves workflow continuity at the cost of not hard-stopping on a detection.

What the prompt injection defences do not eliminate: A sufficiently creative injection that does not match known patterns, or an injection that arrives through a channel the hooks do not cover (for example, content injected into a dependency's published README that is read by a subagent browsing documentation). Defence in depth means each layer makes the attack harder, not that any single layer makes it impossible.

Reporting vulnerabilities. Report via private GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/open-gsd/gsd-core/security/advisories/new. Do not open public issues. See SECURITY.md for the response timeline and disclosure policy.

---

Related

• Commands — includes /gsd-secure-phase and /gsd-code-review with security-relevant flags
• Architecture § Hook System — implementation detail on every hook, its event trigger, and safety properties
• SECURITY.md — vulnerability reporting, org-wide security baseline, secret-scan exclusion governance, and dependency integrity verification
• Docs index