Blog
Table of Content
The Risks of Connectors in Your AI Applications
Connectors increase the scope of what your AI can do, increasing the indirect prompt injection attack surface and the risk of irreversible actions.
The Threat Model
Across AI applications, ‘connectors’ are a common means of expanding an agent’s capabilities to existing systems and thereby, its utility. However, connectors also expand the risk surface for indirect prompt injection attacks. New sources of untrusted data may contain prompt injections, and new sensitive data becomes at risk of exfiltration. Furthermore, agents can initiate new downstream actions taken across third-party surfaces. In total, the surface to audit is substantial.
Risks from connectors can be modeled similarly across most major AI applications. There are three pillars that matter:
Untrusted external data intake: data pulled into the model’s context can contain prompt injections that manipulate the AI model.
Sensitive internal data intake: any data pulled into the model’s context is at risk of exfiltration
Downstream actions: interactions the model has with external systems can cause lasting effects, such as exfiltrating data by communicating with a third party or modifying a connected internal system.
These three pillars draw back to Simon Willison’s Lethal Trifecta for Agents. When an agent operates on sensitive data alongside untrusted data, with the opportunity for external actions, prompt injections in the untrusted data can manipulate the AI model to expose the sensitive data through an external action.
When choosing connectors, it is crucial to consider the cumulative effect of the connectors towards the ‘lethal trifecta’ existing in one’s environment. Consider an agent enabled with the following:
Confluence connector (read access to internal knowledge-base articles)
Zendesk connector (able to read and reply to customer support tickets)
Enabled together, a customer who files a ticket carrying a prompt injection can manipulate the model into reading a sensitive Confluence article and posting it back as a Zendesk reply, surfacing material intended for internal staff only to the customer.
Connectors risk when combined with existing functionality
Most AI apps ship with built-in capabilities that already satisfy one or two pillars of the trifecta before any connector is enabled. For example:
Built-in web search and browsing can provide both untrusted data ingestion (any web page can carry an injection payload) and an outbound channel (every fetch is a
GETrequest the receiving server can log).File uploads can introduce sensitive or untrusted data depending on the origin.
Memories and Projects can carry sensitive context from one session into future sessions.
As such, it is important to audit connectors in the context of an application's existing functionalities.
Applications with Connectors and How to Configure Them
Every major AI application exposes connector governance to admins, but the controls live in different places and offer different granularity. The table below maps where Owners and admins go to enable, disable, or scope connectors across the five most widely deployed enterprise AI apps.
- ›Enable or Delete per connector
- ›Per-tool gating: Customize → Connectors → Select Tool → Tool permissions → Always allow / Needs approval / Blocked
- ›Per-app enable/disable: Directory tab to enable; Enabled tab → ••• → Disable to revoke
- ›Per-app Action control: All actions / Read only / Custom. When Custom is selected, new actions added later are governed by Enable all new actions / Only enable new read actions / Disable new actions
- ›RBAC: Workspace settings → Permissions & roles → Custom roles → [role] → Connected data → Allow members to use apps → Select
- ›Enable or Disable each source for users
- ›Staged Rollout — limits visibility to specific users
- ›Org-wide on/off per connector — when disabled at the org level, members do not see the connector in their personal settings at all
An Audit of Common Connectors
When evaluating whether to enable a given connector, walk it through the three pillars: does it bring untrusted data into the model's context, does it allow the model to access sensitive data, and does it create a downstream action path?
A note on "read" actions
The self-described read / write split by connectors isn't always clean. Connector capabilities advertised as read-only still create externally observable side effects or local-execution paths, for example:
Search, browse, and lookup tools transmit the query itself to a third party. An attacker who controls a target service (or any service the model can be coerced into querying) can read those queries from server logs — the model has exfiltrated data without ever receiving a useful response.
Email-read connectors can fetch attachments to the local environment so the model can parse them. Attacker-controlled attachments can carry parser exploits or embedded malware.
When auditing connectors, it is pertinent to assess potential 'write' style impacts even on connectors described as 'read-only'.