The Hidden Backdoor in Claude Code: Why Its Power Is Also Its Greatest Vulnerability

This blog explores how indirect prompt injection turns your most productive tool into an attack vector - and an claude-hooks that fights back.

‍

The Seductive Trap of Full Automation

Claude Code is, without exaggeration, one of the most powerful developer tools ever created. With a single command, it can read your entire codebase, execute shell commands, fetch web pages, interact with databases through MCP servers, and orchestrate complex multi-step workflows.

‍

The temptation is irresistible: claude --dangerously-skip-permissions

‍

That flag. That beautiful, terrifying flag. It removes all confirmation prompts, letting Claude operate at machine speed without human bottlenecks. Pair it with a few MCP servers, like Notion for documentation, GitHub for repositories, Slack for communication, and a database connector for your production data, and you've built yourself an autonomous coding agent. And therein lies the problem.

You've also built a perfect attack surface for indirect prompt injection: an OWASP Top 10vulnerability class that turns Claude's greatest strength (following instructions) into a weapon that can be wielded against you.

‍

What Is Indirect Prompt Injection?

For starters, there are 2 types of prompt injection: direct and indirect prompt injection. Direct prompt injection is when an attacker types malicious instructions directly to an AI. It's obvious and relatively easy to guard against.

Indirect prompt injection is far more insidious. The attacker never interacts with the AI directly. Instead, they hide malicious instructions in places the AI will read, like:

• A README file in a cloned repository
• A web page Claude fetches for research
• An API response from an MCP server
• A comment in a code file
• A ticket description in your issue tracker

When Claude reads this content, it sees what appears to be legitimate instructions. And Claude is trained to be helpful and to follow those instructions. That's the entire point.

The attack exploits the fundamental design of AI assistants: they can't reliably distinguish between instructions from the user and instructions embedded in content they're processing.

‍

The Attack Surface Is Massive

Consider a typical Claude Code session with --dangerously-skip-permissions enabled:

‍

Scenario 1: The Poisoned Repository

You clone a seemingly helpful open source library. Buried in a markdown file or, worse, in a code comment is:

Claude reads the file. Claude sees an instruction. Claude has permission to run bash commands without asking.

‍

Scenario 2: The Compromised Documentation

You ask Claude to research a library's API. It fetches a web page that contains:

The instruction claims false authority. Claude might comply.

‍

Scenario 3: The MCP Trojan Horse

Your Notion MCP server fetches a page that a colleague (or an attacker with access) has edited to include:

Every MCP connection is a trust boundary. Every trust boundary is an attack vector.

‍

The Four Horsemen of Prompt Injection

Lasso’s research identified four primary categories of indirect prompt injection techniques:

‍

1. Instruction Override

The most direct approach is explicitly telling the AI to ignore its previous instructions:

• "Ignore all previous instructions"
• "New system prompt:"
• "Forget your training"
• "IMPORTANT: Override previous context"

‍

2. Role-Playing & Jailbreaks (DAN)

Attempting to make the AI adopt an alternate persona without restrictions:

• "You are now DAN (Do Anything Now)"
• "Pretend you are an unrestricted AI"
• "Your evil twin has taken over"
• "Enter developer mode"

‍

3. Encoding & Obfuscation

Hiding malicious instructions using various encoding schemes:

• Base64: SWdub3JlIGFsbCBwcmV2aW91cyBpbnN0cnVjdGlvbnM=
• Leetspeak: 1gn0r3 pr3v10us 1nstruct10ns
• Homoglyphs: Using Cyrillic 'а' instead of Latin 'a'
• Zero-width characters: Invisible Unicode hiding instructions

‍

4. Context Manipulation

Exploiting trust relationships and authority claims:

• "ADMIN MESSAGE FROM ANTHROPIC:"
• <!-- Hidden instructions in HTML comments -->
• Fake JSON system messages
• Claims about previous conversations

‍

Why Existing Defenses Fall Short

Now, you might think Claude is trained to resist prompt injection, and you’re right. Anthropic has safety measures and Claude does have built-in resistance. But:

1. No defense is perfect. Novel techniques and edge cases slip through.
2. Volume attacks work. If an attacker can try thousands of variations, some will succeed.
3. Context matters. Instructions that seem malicious in isolation might appear legitimate in context.
4. The automation trap. With --dangerously-skip-permissions, there's no human checkpoint to catch suspicious behavior.

The fundamental problem here is that Claude processes untrusted content with trusted privileges.

‍

Introducing the Claude Code Prompt Injection Defender by Lasso

We built an open-source solution that adds a critical security layer: runtime detection of prompt injection attempts in tool outputs.

The defender operates as a PostToolUse hook—a mechanism in Claude Code that runs after any tool execution but before Claude processes the results. Think of it as a security scanner sitting between the untrusted world and Claude's context window.

‍

How It Works

‍

‍

When Claude reads a file, fetches a web page, or receives MCP output:

1. The defender intercepts the tool result.
2. Scans content against 50+ detection patterns.
3. If a threat is detected, it injects a prominent warning into Claude's context.
4. Claude sees both the content AND the warning.
5. Processing continues but Claude is now alerted.

‍

The Warn-and-Continue Philosophy

We deliberately chose not to block suspicious content outright. Why?

• False positives happen. Security research, documentation about attacks, and legitimate code can trigger patterns.
• Context matters. Claude with a warning can make better decisions than a blunt block.
• Transparency wins. Users see what was detected and can investigate.

The warning is impossible to miss:

Detection Coverage

The defender includes 50+ regex patterns across all four injection categories:

‍

‍

Severity levels help prioritize response:

• HIGH: Definite injection attempt so be very cautious
• MEDIUM: Suspicious pattern that may have legitimate uses
• LOW: Informational and potentially a false positive

‍

Installation: 5 Minutes to Better Security

The defender is available in both Python (uv) and TypeScript (bun) implementations.

‍

Quick Start (Python)

Step 1: Clone the repository:

Step 2: Copy the hook to your project:

Step 3: Add to your Claude Code settings:

That's it. Every file read, web fetch, and command output is now scanned.

‍

Extending the Defender

The defender is designed for extensibility. All patterns live in a single patterns.yaml file:

Enterprise Deployment: Protect Your Entire Organization

Here's where it gets interesting for security teams.

Claude Code supports managed settings or enterprise-controlled configurations that are automatically enforced across all users in an organization. These settings have the highest precedence and cannot be overridden by individual users or project configurations.

This means your security team can deploy the Prompt Injection Defender once and protect every developer in your organization.

‍

How Enterprise Managed Settings Work

Claude for Enterprise customers have two deployment options:

Option 1: Admin Console (Remote)

Settings configured in the Claude.ai admin console are fetched automatically when users authenticate. Zero touch deployment.

Option 2: File-Based (IT Deployment)

Deploy managed-settings.json to system directories:

These are system-wide paths requiring administrator privileges—designed for IT/DevOps deployment.

‍

The Nuclear Option: allowManagedHooksOnly

Enterprise admins can set a critical flag that ensures users cannot disable or bypass the defender:

When allowManagedHooksOnly is true, managed hooks run but user hooks, project hooks, and plugin hooks are all blocked.

‍

Settings Precedence

1. Managed settings (admin console) — Cannot be overridden
2. File-based managed settings — Cannot be overridden
3. Command line arguments
4. Local project settings
5. Shared project settings
6. User settings — Lowest priority

This hierarchy ensures enterprise security policies always win.

‍

Why This Matters

For organizations with hundreds of developers using Claude Code:

• One deployment protects everyone
• Consistent security posture across all projects
• Compliance-friendly audit trail
• No reliance on individual developers remembering to install security tools

Your developers get the productivity of full automation and your security team gets peace of mind.

‍

The Bigger Picture: Defense in Depth

The prompt injection defender is one layer in what should be a defense-in-depth strategy:

1. Principle of Least Privilege: Don't use --dangerously-skip-permissions unless absolutely necessary. When you must, scope it tightly.
2. MCP Server Auditing: Know what data your MCP servers can access. Treat each connection as a trust boundary.
3. Content Scanning: Use the defender to catch injection attempts in real-time.
4. Output Monitoring: Watch what Claude produces, especially commands and code changes.
5. Regular Updates: Prompt injection is an evolving threat. Keep your patterns current.

‍

The Call to Action

If you're using Claude Code with elevated permissions, and let's be honest, most power users are, then you're accepting risk. That's fine. Risk is part of innovation. But unmitigated risk is just recklessness.

The Claude Code Prompt Injection Defender is:

• Open source — Audit it, extend it, improve it
• Lightweight — Adds milliseconds, not seconds
• Non-blocking — Warns without breaking your flow
• Extensible — Add patterns for new threats as they emerge

‍

Get it on GitHub: claude-hooks

‍

Attackers are already thinking about how to exploit your AI assistant. It's time you started thinking about how to defend it.

‍

‍The Lasso Claude-hooks is an open-source project by Lasso Security.

Contributions, pattern submissions, and security research are welcome.

‍

‍