Tool Name Conflict
Category: Tool Poisoning & Metadata Attacks
Severity: Medium
MITRE ATT&CK Mapping: T1036 (Masquerading)
Description
Multiple tools with similar names causing confusion and potential hijacking of legitimate tool calls, leading to unintended execution of malicious tools instead of intended ones.
Technical Details
Attack Vector
- Similar tool names causing confusion
- Name collision exploitation
- Tool selection ambiguity
- Namespace pollution
Common Techniques
- Near-identical tool names
- Typosquatting tool names
- Case variation exploitation
- Unicode similarity attacks
Impact
- Tool Hijacking: Malicious tools executed instead of legitimate ones
- User Confusion: Difficulty identifying correct tools
- Execution Errors: Unintended tool execution
- Security Bypass: Legitimate tool security bypassed
Detection Methods
Name Analysis
- Detect similar tool names
- Monitor name collisions
- Analyze naming patterns
- Check for typosquatting
Selection Monitoring
- Track tool selection decisions
- Monitor selection ambiguity
- Detect selection errors
- Analyze tool usage patterns
Mitigation Strategies
Naming Controls
- Implement naming standards
- Use namespace management
- Deploy name validation
- Monitor naming conflicts
Selection Validation
- Implement tool disambiguation
- Use explicit tool selection
- Deploy selection confirmation
- Monitor tool choices
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Similar Names
Legitimate: "file_reader"
Malicious: "file-reader", "file_Reader", "flle_reader"
Example 2: Typosquatting
Legitimate: "database_connector"
Malicious: "databse_connector", "database_connecter"
Example 3: Unicode Similarity
Legitimate: "email_sender"
Malicious: "еmail_sender" (Cyrillic 'е')
References & Sources
- Academic Paper - “Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directions”
- CyberArk - “Is your AI safe? Threat analysis of MCP”
Related TTPs
Tool name conflicts exploit the ambiguity in tool selection to redirect execution to malicious alternatives.