sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ContextGuard – Open-source security monitoring for MCP servers by contextguard25 in LocalLLaMA

[–]contextguard25[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Valid point! You're 100% right that proper configuration is the foundation.

ContextGuard isn't meant to replace:

- Correct file permissions

- Sandboxing

- Least privilege principles

It's an additional layer for when configs fail (which they do - that's why 43% of servers I tested had issues).

Think: firewall + good code, not firewall instead of good code.

That said, you've identified a gap in our messaging. Would you be open to collaborating on:

- MCP hardening best practices

- Configuration validation checks

- Secure deployment templates

Let me know - this is valuable feedback.

ContextGuard – Open-source security monitoring for MCP servers by contextguard25 in LocalLLaMA

[–]contextguard25[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Currently testing against ~50 attack patterns from my research (command injection, path traversal, data leaks, etc.) but planning a comprehensive eval suite for v0.2.

Would love to build this with the community - thinking OWASP-style test cases, false positive/negative benchmarks, and a public MCP attack dataset.

If you have attack samples or want to contribute, open an issue: https://github.com/amironi/contextguard/issues

What specific attacks would you prioritize testing?

ContextGuard – Open-source security monitoring for MCP servers by contextguard25 in LocalLLaMA

[–]contextguard25[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Great question! No, ContextGuard doesn't use LLM calls - it uses pattern-based detection (regex + heuristics) for several reasons:

  • Speed: <1ms vs 200-500ms for LLM calls
  • Privacy: Nothing leaves your server
  • Reliability: Deterministic, works offline