惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

U
Unit 42
博客园 - 司徒正美
V
Visual Studio Blog
博客园 - 【当耐特】
T
Tailwind CSS Blog
美团技术团队
博客园 - 叶小钗
Jina AI
Jina AI
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享
IT之家
IT之家
Hugging Face - Blog
Hugging Face - Blog
雷峰网
雷峰网
Stack Overflow Blog
Stack Overflow Blog
博客园_首页
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
T
The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss
P
Proofpoint News Feed
Microsoft Security Blog
Microsoft Security Blog
Y
Y Combinator Blog
GbyAI
GbyAI
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏
Martin Fowler
Martin Fowler
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
腾讯CDC

DEV Community

Authentication Security Deep Dive: From Brute Force to Salted Hashing (With Java Examples) Why AI Systems Don’t Fail — They Drift Spilling beans for how i learn for exam😁"Reinforcement Learning Cheat Sheet" I Replaced Chrome with Safari for AI Browser Automation. Here's What Broke (and What Finally Worked) How Python Borrows Other People's Work The $40 Architecture: Processing 1 Billion API Requests with 99.99% Uptime Vibe Coding: A Workflow Guide (From Zero to SaaS) Most webhook security guides protect the wrong side. The scary part is delivery. Headless CMS for TanStack Start: Build a Blog with Cosmic EU Age Verification App "Hacked in 2 Minutes" — What Actually Happened Comfy Cloud’s delete function does not actually remove files Running AI Models on GPU Cloud Servers: A Beginner Guide Event-driven media intelligence with AWS Step Functions and Bedrock I scored 500 AI prompts across 8 quality dimensions — here's what broke How to Call Google Gemini API from Next.js (Free Tier, No Backend Needed) The Portal Protocol: Reclaiming Human Connection in the Age of AI How to Fix Your Team's Scattered Knowledge Problem With a Self-Hosted Forum Intro to tc Cloud Functors: A Graph-First Mental Model for the Modern Cloud Designing Multi-Tenant Backends With Both Ownership and Team Access I Built a Neumorphic CSS Library with 77+ Components — Here's What I Learned PostgreSQL Performance Optimization: Why Connection Pooling Is Critical at Scale Cómo construí un SaaS multi-rubro para gestionar expensas en Argentina con FastAPI + Vue 3 🚀 I Built an Ethical Hacking Scanner Tool – Open Source Project I Replaced /usage and /context in Claude Code With a Single Statusline A Pythonic Way to Handle Emails (IMAP/SMTP) with Auto-Discovery and AI-Ready Design I Collected 8.9 Million Polymarket Price Points — Here's What I Found About How Markets Really Move EcoTrack AI — Carbon Footprint Tracker & Dashboard Everyone's Using AI. No One Agrees How. 5 self-hosted ebook managers worth trying in 2026 Building Your First AI Agent with LangChain: From Chatbot to Autonomous Assistant
Your AI agent has sudo. I built a tool to take it away.
Hassan Mehmood · 2026-06-21 · via DEV Community

A few weeks ago I gave an AI agent access to my machine through MCP. It read files, opened PRs, queried a database. It was great — until I looked at what it could have done if a tool description had been poisoned, or a prompt injection had slipped through.

The answer was: anything. ~/.ssh/id_rsa. DROP TABLE users. rm -rf /. The agent had sudo, and nobody had voted for that.

So I built AgentPerms — a CLI that gives MCP agents least-privilege permissions the same way you'd lock down any other process: figure out the minimum it actually needs, pin it, prove it, and enforce it.

pip install agentperms

The gap nobody was filling

MCP (the Model Context Protocol) is quietly becoming the USB-C of AI tooling. Claude Desktop, Cursor, VS Code, Windsurf, Gemini CLI — they all speak it. Which is wonderful, and also means your agent is one config file away from your filesystem, your repos, your inbox, and prod.

The existing tools each do part of the job:

  • Scanners tell you something looks risky. Then they leave. You still have a risky thing.
  • Firewalls / allowlists make you hand-write YAML up front — before you have any idea what the agent will actually use.

Neither closes the loop. What I wanted was the boring, proven security workflow we already use for everything else: observe real behavior → derive least privilege → enforce it → keep it honest in CI.

That's the whole thesis of AgentPerms, as a pipeline:

record → infer → lock → replay → enforce

See it in 30 seconds (no setup, no network)

AgentPerms ships with a deliberately over-privileged demo MCP server, so you can watch a real policy decision without wiring anything up:

# Flag risky config: a ~/.ssh mount and an unpinned npx server
agentperms scan --path examples/vulnerable-mcp-demo

# Replay a pack of canned attacks against an example policy
agentperms replay --policy examples/policies/example.mcp.policy.yaml

Output:

8/8 attacks blocked.

SSH-key exfiltration, .env reads, rm -rf /, unapproved email, force-push, repo deletion, destructive SQL — every one denied or routed to human approval before it would ever reach a server.

The trick: be the proxy

Here's the part I'm proud of. AgentPerms doesn't ask your agent to cooperate, and it doesn't patch the client. It rewrites the MCP client's config so every server launches through a transparent stdio proxy:

Agent  →  AgentPerms proxy  →  MCP server
              │
              ├─ record:  log every tools/call, then forward
              └─ enforce: allow / deny / require-approval before forwarding

The proxy spawns the real server as a subprocess and pumps newline-delimited JSON-RPC both ways. It intercepts tools/call requests and captures tools/list responses. That's it. The agent has no idea it's there.

A server entry goes from this:

{ "command": "python3", "args": ["server.py"] }

to this (original command preserved after --, with a .agentperms.bak so you can roll back):

{
  "command": "/usr/bin/python3",
  "args": ["-m", "agentperms", "_proxy",
           "--mode", "enforce", "--server", "demo",
           "--policy", "/abs/path/mcp.policy.yaml",
           "--", "python3", "server.py"]
}

In record mode it logs and forwards. In enforce mode it evaluates first and, on a DENY, returns a synthetic JSON-RPC error to the client without forwarding. Denied calls never touch the server.

Record what's real, infer the minimum

You don't write the policy. You run your agent normally for a while with recording on:

agentperms record --client cursor
#   ... use your agent ...
agentperms infer        # traces -> mcp.policy.yaml

infer is the killer command. It reads the traces and emits the minimum policy that still lets the agent do what it actually did:

  • the tools it called become allowed_tools
  • the directories it touched collapse into the smallest covering set of allowed_paths
  • known-dangerous categories (shell, repo deletion, email send, DB writes) get seeded straight into denied_tools / human-approval

The result reads like a security review wrote it for you:

Your agent only used read-only GitHub calls and local ./src access. It does not need shell, home directory, secrets, Gmail send, or database write access.

One decision authority

Whatever you do, there must be exactly one place that says allow/deny/approve — otherwise your offline tests and your live enforcement drift apart and you're testing a lie.

In AgentPerms that's a single evaluate(policy, server, tool, args) function, called by both the live proxy and offline replay. First-match-wins:

  1. On the human-approval list → require approval
  2. In denied_toolsdeny
  3. A path argument hits denied_paths / denied_patternsdeny
  4. allowed_tools set and tool not in it → deny (default-deny)
  5. allowed_paths set and a path falls outside it → deny
  6. Otherwise → allow

An empty policy allows everything. The moment any server is constrained, unknown servers default-deny. What you test in replay is byte-for-byte what runs in production, because it's the same code path.

The policy itself stays small and reviewable:

version: 1
servers:
  github:
    allowed_tools: [list_repos, read_file, create_issue]
    denied_tools:  [delete_repo, write_secret, force_push]
  filesystem:
    allowed_paths:    [./src, ./docs]
    denied_paths:     [~/.ssh, ~/.env, /etc]
    denied_patterns:  ["*.pem", "*.key"]
approvals:
  require_human_approval: [gmail.send_email, github.merge_pr, shell.exec]
redaction: { secrets: true, emails: true, api_keys: true }

Tool poisoning: pin the identity

There's a sneaky MCP attack class where a server silently changes a tool's description or schema after you've trusted it — the model re-reads it and gets quietly re-instructed. So AgentPerms also locks tool identity:

agentperms lock          # hash every tool's name/description/schema
agentperms lock --check  # fail if any of them changed

Drop lock --check in CI and a poisoned tool fails the build instead of your users.

Make it a part of the codebase

agentperms init   # scaffolds .github/workflows/agentperms.yml

On every push/PR it runs:

agentperms scan --path .     # surface risky configs
agentperms lock --check      # fail on tool poisoning
agentperms replay            # fail if the policy stops blocking attacks

Commit mcp.policy.yaml and mcp.lock, and your agent's permissions become a reviewable, version-controlled, enforceable artifact — like any other part of your security posture.

What it doesn't do (yet)

I'd rather be honest than oversell:

  • Transport: local stdio MCP servers today. HTTP/SSE is on the roadmap.
  • Approvals prompt on the terminal — fine for dev, not yet a fleet-grade workflow.
  • A live dashboard and a Node wrapper are next.

Try it

pip install agentperms
agentperms scan --path examples/vulnerable-mcp-demo
agentperms replay --policy examples/policies/example.mcp.policy.yaml

If you're running agents with real access to real systems, I'd genuinely love your feedback — especially on the policy model and what attack shapes you'd want in the replay pack. Issues and PRs welcome.

Your agent doesn't need sudo. Let's take it away.