跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.03431 · v1

IAMRAGBENCH: Benchmarking Authorization Expansions in LLM-Generated AWS IAM Policies under RAG Poisoning

首次提交 2026-11-03 00:52
版本更新 2026-11-03 00:52
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:41
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Large language models (LLMs) using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can synthesize Amazon Web Services (AWS) Identity and Access Management (IAM) policies from tasks and operational documents. Attacker-controlled context may induce provider-valid policies that exceed trusted authorization requirements. We present IAMRAGBENCH, a 60-case benchmark spanning scope, conditions, explicit denies, trust, permissions boundaries, and role delegation. It combines deterministic authorization-envelope scoring with case-specific validation, including request-level checks where supported. An attack requires a provider-valid clean policy that satisfies the task and a provider-valid treatment policy that violates the envelope, matches a predeclared goal, preserves an intended request, and newly authorizes a forbidden request. Across five endpoints, included-context exposure produces 49 exact authorization deltas, including 46 goal-matched attacks (46/292; 15.75\%). End-to-end BM25 over 720 documents retrieves the designated poison for all 60 tasks at \(k=5\) but produces 7/294 goal-matched attacks (2.38\%). Presenting the same weakening as a final security architecture exception produces 74/116 attacks in a frozen two-endpoint stress test (63.79\%) and 115/294 in a post hoc all-five extension using the same frozen prompts (39.12\%). In a replay of 194 provider-valid treatment policies that violate task requirements, AWS \texttt{CheckNoNewAccess} reports no new access for four of 168 goal-matched exact attacks. The full pre-deployment rule rejects all 171 exact deltas and routes five unresolved cases to review. These findings support treating IAM copilots as untrusted proposal generators whose outputs require independent authorization checks before deployment.

作者备注:20 pages, 4 figures, 5 tables

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-03 00:52 · 最新观测版本

IAMRAGBENCH: Benchmarking Authorization Expansions in LLM-Generated AWS IAM Policies under RAG Poisoning

Large language models (LLMs) using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can synthesize Amazon Web Services (AWS) Identity and Access Management (IAM) policies from tasks and operational documents. Attacker-controlled context may induce provider-valid policies that exceed trusted authorization requirements. We present IAMRAGBENCH, a 60-case benchmark spanning scope, conditions, explicit denies, trust, permissions boundaries, and role delegation. It combines deterministic authorization-envelope scoring with case-specific validation, including request-level checks where supported. An attack requires a provider-valid clean policy that satisfies the task and a provider-valid treatment policy that violates the envelope, matches a predeclared goal, preserves an intended request, and newly authorizes a forbidden request. Across five endpoints, included-context exposure produces 49 exact authorization deltas, including 46 goal-matched attacks (46/292; 15.75\%). End-to-end BM25 over 720 documents retrieves the designated poison for all 60 tasks at \(k=5\) but produces 7/294 goal-matched attacks (2.38\%). Presenting the same weakening as a final security architecture exception produces 74/116 attacks in a frozen two-endpoint stress test (63.79\%) and 115/294 in a post hoc all-five extension using the same frozen prompts (39.12\%). In a replay of 194 provider-valid treatment policies that violate task requirements, AWS \texttt{CheckNoNewAccess} reports no new access for four of 168 goal-matched exact attacks. The full pre-deployment rule rejects all 171 exact deltas and routes five unresolved cases to review. These findings support treating IAM copilots as untrusted proposal generators whose outputs require independent authorization checks before deployment.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗