Aegis-Shadow is a security research tool designed for educational and authorized testing purposes only.

• Use only in authorized, isolated lab environments
• Never deploy on production systems
• Obtain proper authorization before testing
• Comply with all applicable laws and regulations
• Misuse may violate computer fraud and abuse laws

If you discover a security vulnerability in Aegis-Shadow, please report it responsibly:

1. Do NOT open a public GitHub issue
2. Email security concerns to the project maintainers
3. Include detailed reproduction steps
4. Allow reasonable time for response (90 days)

1. Hardcoded Cryptographic Keys

   • Location: common/src/lib.rs
   • Impact: C2 traffic can be decrypted by anyone with source access
   • Mitigation: For research only - never use in real scenarios
   • Status: ⚠️ KNOWN ISSUE (intentional for research)

2. No Key Rotation

   • Impact: Long-term key compromise risk
   • Mitigation: Implement KDF and rotation for production use
   • Status: ⚠️ NOT IMPLEMENTED

3. Limited Input Validation

   • Impact: Potential for invalid operations
   • Mitigation: Add comprehensive validation (see CODE_REVIEW.md)
   • Status: 🔧 PARTIAL

4. Minimal Rate Limiting

   • Impact: Alert flooding possible in defense module
   • Mitigation: Implement per-CPU rate limiting
   • Status: 🔧 PARTIAL

5. Silent Error Handling

   • Impact: Failures may go unnoticed
   • Mitigation: Add error counters and logging
   • Status: 🔧 IN PROGRESS

6. Defense Detection Gaps

   • Impact: Detection may miss sophisticated attacks
   • Mitigation: 14 modules implemented (11 kernel-space + 3 user-space response); further tuning needed
   • Status: ✅ MODULES COMPLETE (tuning ongoing)

7. No Audit Logging

   • Impact: Difficult to track usage
   • Mitigation: Add comprehensive audit trail
   • Status: ❌ NOT IMPLEMENTED

1. Environment Isolation

   • Use dedicated test VMs or containers
   • Never test on shared infrastructure
   • Isolate network traffic
   • Use snapshots for easy rollback

2. Key Management

   • Generate unique keys per deployment
   • Never commit keys to version control
   • Use environment variables or secure vaults
   • Rotate keys regularly

3. Monitoring

   • Log all operations
   • Monitor for unexpected behavior
   • Set up alerts for anomalies
   • Review logs regularly

4. Cleanup

   • Always unload eBPF programs after testing
   • Remove pinned maps
   • Verify no residual hooks remain
   • Document all changes made

1. Detection Strategies

   • Monitor for ghost BPF maps
   • Track syscall latency anomalies
   • Verify BPF program integrity
   • Check for hidden processes
   • Audit BPF program attachments
   • Detect program ID gaps (cloaking)
   • Profile syscall argument patterns
   • Baseline network behavior per-PID
   • Monitor memory-backed execution (memfd)
   • Audit BPF map content for C2 signatures
   • Detect rapid tracepoint detach (anti-forensics)
   • Deploy honeypot BPF maps
   • Monitor CPUID/hypercall interceptions (hypervisor evasion)
   • Detect BPF program reload patterns (polymorphic engine)
   • Watch for XDP-level TCP handling invisible to kernel (phantom stack)
   • Monitor cgroup_bpf_prog_attach for lateral movement
   • Audit IOMMU mappings and PCI config access patterns (DMA channels)
   • Statistical analysis of rootkit activity timing (behavioral AI)
   • Monitor package manager executions and binary integrity (supply chain)
   • Track UDP heartbeat patterns (dead man's switch)
   • Audit tail-call arrays and prog_array maps for parasitism

2. Response Procedures

   • Isolate affected systems immediately
   • Capture memory dumps for analysis
   • Unload suspicious BPF programs
   • Review audit logs
   • Perform forensic analysis

3. Prevention Measures

   • Restrict BPF capabilities
   • Enable kernel lockdown mode
   • Monitor BPF program loading
   • Use signed eBPF programs
   • Implement least privilege

• Day 0: Vulnerability reported
• Day 1-7: Initial triage and acknowledgment
• Day 7-30: Investigation and fix development
• Day 30-60: Testing and validation
• Day 60-90: Coordinated disclosure
• Day 90+: Public disclosure if no response

• Never hardcode secrets
• Validate all inputs
• Use safe Rust patterns
• Minimize unsafe blocks
• Add comprehensive tests
• Document security assumptions
• Review code regularly
• Use static analysis tools

• Use unique keys per deployment
• Enable all security features
• Monitor for anomalies
• Implement rate limiting
• Add audit logging
• Restrict access
• Use principle of least privilege
• Have incident response plan

• Test in isolated environment
• Use non-production data
• Document all tests
• Clean up after testing
• Verify no persistence
• Check for side effects
• Review logs
• Validate cleanup

• Obtain written authorization before testing
• Comply with CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act)
• Follow GDPR for data handling
• Respect intellectual property rights
• Adhere to organizational policies

• Use only for legitimate security research
• Minimize impact on systems
• Respect privacy and confidentiality
• Disclose vulnerabilities responsibly
• Contribute to security community

For security-related inquiries:

• Email: [To be configured]
• PGP Key: [To be configured]
• Response Time: 48-72 hours

We thank the security research community for responsible disclosure and contributions to improving this tool.

Last Updated: 2026-06-19
Version: 1.1
Status: Active Research Project