Skip to content

Security: ninadphalak/LLM-Shield-Proxy

SECURITY.md

Security Policy

Reporting a vulnerability

Use GitHub private vulnerability reporting. It is enabled on this repository, the report stays private until a fix is published, and it needs no email address from either side.

Please do not open a public issue for a vulnerability. Public issues are the right place for everything else, including benchmark results you disagree with.

Include what you have: affected version, configuration, and the smallest reproduction you can manage. A report without a reproduction is still worth sending.

What to expect

This is a single-maintainer project. There is no staffed response rota and no guaranteed turnaround. Reports are read and acknowledged; a fix timeline depends on severity and on the maintainer's availability. If that does not meet your disclosure requirements, say so in the report and coordinate a date rather than assuming one.

Supported versions

Distribution Version Supported
llm-shield-proxy 1.6.x Yes
llm-shield-proxy < 1.6 No
pii-leak-benchmark 0.1.x Yes

Only the latest patch release of a supported line receives fixes. There are no long-term support branches.

Scope

This repository ships two things, and a report should say which one it is about.

llm-shield-proxy is a privacy gateway that sits in a request path. In scope: bypasses of the redaction pipeline, SSRF and DNS-rebinding defeats in the egress guard, RBAC and policy bypass, audit-chain forgery or sequence manipulation, PII reaching logs, traces or exception paths, and any fail-open behaviour in a control documented as fail-closed.

pii-leak-benchmark is a measuring instrument. In scope, and treated as seriously as a proxy bug: anything that makes the harness report a target as safer than it is. Every inspector defect found in this project so far has flattered the target, so a false pass is the failure mode that matters most here. Missed leak detection, capture-server attribution errors, and decoding or normalisation gaps all count.

Out of scope

  • Findings against a deployment you do not operate or have permission to test.
  • Missing detections that are a stated limitation. The proxy makes no completeness claim for detection on unlabelled traffic; see LIMITATIONS.md.
  • Absence of a control the documentation already says is absent. Tamper-evident audit logging is not WORM without immutable retention, and this is documented, not a defect.
  • Benchmark results you consider unfair or wrong. Those are a public discussion, not a vulnerability - open an issue.

Related

This file is the vulnerability disclosure policy. For the threat model, the OWASP LLM mapping, and what each control does, see website/docs/security.md, which is a different document with a different purpose.

There aren't any published security advisories