-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 158
Add security and privacy questionnaire #195
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
1029013
eb0b7d2
0692f57
86fa9e5
e2c933c
39c96b7
79e804c
4e84b15
e4b6c55
770d7c7
cff5b3a
8e1013f
5471660
633e3da
a7e298d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ | ||||||
| # [Self-Review Questionnaire: Security and Privacy](https://w3c.github.io/security-questionnaire/) | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 01. What information does this feature expose, and for what purposes? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| WebMCP exposes author-defined tool metadata and tool return values to the built-in AI agent. It does not expose new information about the user or their environment to origins. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| Cross-origin iframes may discover these tools only if the tool author explicitly opts in via [`exposedTo`](https://webmachinelearning.github.io/webmcp/#dom-modelcontextregistertooloptions-exposedto). | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 02. Do features in your specification expose the minimum amount of information necessary to implement the intended functionality? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| Yes. The API surface exposes only what is necessary for agents to discover and invoke tools. The information that flows through tool metadata like parameters and annotations, as well as tool return values, is entirely scoped to what the author declares. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 03. Do the features in your specification expose personal information, personally-identifiable information (PII), or information derived from either? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| No, the API itself does not expose PII, but the tools that authors choose to implement _can_, depending on their nature. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| We note a novel challenge for agent implementers: malicious tools can request a non-minimal set of personal data via their input parameters, causing privacy leakage. See [Privacy Leakage through Over-Parameterization](https://w3c.github.io/webmcp/#privacy-leakage-over-parameterization) for details. WebMCP does not increase the attack vector compared to tools in non-WebMCP contexts, but agent implementers should be aware that this risk exists. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 04. How do the features in your specification deal with sensitive information? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| WebMCP is not a source of sensitive information. Tools may wrap sensitive or high-privilege operations (e.g., purchases, account changes), but that risk is not WebMCP-specific. We discuss this risk in [Tool Implementation as Attack Targets](https://webmachinelearning.github.io/webmcp/#tool-implementation-targets). | ||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. One question I anticipate from privacy review is what mitigations for this issue are possible for WebMCP. I agree with Dom: well said to make clear WebMCP isn't creating the problem. However, if there are any locations to tie the agent's hands a bit and make the privacy story better (even on the level of recommendations rather than requirements) that would be an improvement. Alternatively, you should make clear that nothing is actually being done to defend against that attack in the spec with something like
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think we can reference the https://webmachinelearning.github.io/webmcp/#mitigations section to begin with perhaps? We should also update the mitigations to include this #176, as discussed in the CG call. Beyond that, there will just be things that will be left as recommendations for agent implementers, and thus non-normative in nature. But there should be areas where the API design can help with, and I don't want to close the doors on future mitigations by stating otherwise |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 05. Does data exposed by your specification carry related but distinct information that may not be obvious to users? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| No, the API surface itself does not carry related but distinct information. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 06. Do the features in your specification introduce state that persists across browsing sessions? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| No. Tool registrations are tied to the document's lifetime. There are discussions about persisting tools across navigation, but that is not currently specified. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 07. Do the features in your specification expose information about the underlying platform to origins? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| No. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 08. Does this specification allow an origin to send data to the underlying platform? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| Yes, tool inputs and outputs flow between an origin and the platform's built-in agent. The data is structured JSON-serializable values conforming to declared schemas. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 09. Do features in this specification enable access to device sensors? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| No. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 10. Do features in this specification enable new script execution/loading mechanisms? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| No. Tool `execute` callbacks are ordinary JavaScript invoked in the registering document's existing realm. | ||||||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
If we keep this answer, I have the suggestion above. However, I think there's a chance we might want to say "Yes" to this question, since we're basically introducing a structured postMessage() v2, which allows a set of authorized origins to basically directly schedule callbacks in the tool provider's realm, which is kind of "new" on the platform. Since this is relevant to the TAG review we'll file, let me just ask @jyasskin directly: what do you think our answer should be for this question? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. FWIW, I'd argue in favor of "yes" here. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 11. Do features in this specification allow an origin to access other devices? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| No. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 12. Do features in this specification allow an origin some measure of control over a user agent's native UI? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| [Tool annotations](https://webmachinelearning.github.io/webmcp/#dom-modelcontexttoolannotations) can indirectly influence how an agent presents a tool invocation in its UI (e.g., a `readOnlyHint` may cause the agent to skip a confirmation step). | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| More directly, there is discussion of `requestUserInput` in [Issue #165](https://github.com/webmachinelearning/webmcp/issues/165). | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 13. What temporary identifiers do the features in this specification create or expose to the web? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| None. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 14. How does this specification distinguish between behavior in first-party and third-party contexts? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| The feature is gated by the [`"tools"`](https://webmachinelearning.github.io/webmcp/#permissiondef-tools) permission policy. It is allowed in top-level documents and same-origin descendants by default; The permission policy can be used to allow it in cross-origin iframes and/or to disallow it in same-origin frames. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| Additionally, tools can specify [`exposedTo`](https://webmachinelearning.github.io/webmcp/#dom-modelcontextregistertooloptions-exposedto) to control which origins (or `native-agents`, name to be bikeshed per [#179](https://github.com/webmachinelearning/webmcp/pull/179)) can discover them. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 15. How do the features in this specification work in the context of a browser's Private Browsing or Incognito mode? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| We do not anticipate any differences. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 16. Does this specification have both "Security Considerations" and "Privacy Considerations" sections? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| Yes. See [Security and Privacy Considerations](https://webmachinelearning.github.io/webmcp/#security-privacy). | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 17. Do features in your specification enable origins to downgrade default security protections? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| No. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 18. What happens when a document that uses your feature is kept alive in BFCache (instead of getting destroyed) after navigation, and potentially gets reused on future navigations back to the document? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| A BFCached document's registered tools remain in memory but are unavailable while the document is non-fully-active: tools cannot be invoked, registered, or retrieved. On restoration, registered tools become available again. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 19. What happens when a document that uses your feature gets disconnected? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| A disconnected document's tools are no longer discoverable or invokable by agents. Pending tool invocations associated with the document are abandoned: | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| - In-page agents: the caller's Promise will be rejected | ||||||
| - Built-in agents: the agent will be notified that the tool call failed | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| Note: this behavior is not yet spec'd but is the intended direction. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 20. Does your spec define when and how new kinds of errors should be raised? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| Yes. `registerTool()` throws `InvalidStateError` for inactive documents, duplicate names, or invalid name/description; `NotAllowedError` when the `"tools"` Permissions Policy is disallowed; `SecurityError` for non-trustworthy [`exposedTo`](https://webmachinelearning.github.io/webmcp/#dom-modelcontextregistertooloptions-exposedto) origins; and `TypeError` when `inputSchema` serialization fails. These errors only reflect the page's own state and inputs, so they do not leak new information. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 21. Does your feature allow sites to learn about the user's use of assistive technology? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| No. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| > 22. What should this questionnaire have asked? | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| None that we can think of. | ||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well said!