
Heimdall
io.github.caglarbozkurt由 GitHub 账号 caglarbozkurt 发布v0.5.1更新于 Oct 24, 2026
Scan an MCP server or agent config for injection, exfiltration, and risky capabilities.
概览
本地预检安全扫描器,让助手在接入前静态审查 MCP 服务器或代理配置中的注入、数据外泄与高风险能力。
- 可以做什么
- 扫描目标(npm 或 PyPI 包、本地目录、git 仓库、tools.json 导出或 MCP 客户端配置),生成带 file:line 或 tool:name 证据的评分报告。检查工具描述中的注入与工具投毒,并梳理文件系统、网络、shell、eval 和凭据访问能力。追踪从密钥到网络、从 fetch 到 eval 的已证实数据流路径。审计整个代理配置中的跨服务器外泄链与工具名冲突,并对比基线检测漂移。按默认、严格或自定义策略将结果判定为通过、警告或失败,可选输出 JSON 或 SARIF。
- 适用场景
- 在安装或连接不熟悉的 MCP 服务器之前使用,或用于审查现有代理配置。也适合在 CI 中把关 MCP 配置,让有风险的服务器使构建失败。
- 运行要求
- 通过 npm 包 mcp-heimdall-scan 以 npx 在用户机器上作为本地进程运行;未声明需要账户、API 密钥或环境变量。默认离线工作;可选的在线 CVE 检查会访问 OSV.dev。仅限桌面端。
安装
在 SourceWeft 中
- 打开 控制台中的 Heimdall,将其添加到工作区。
- 为需要使用其工具的对话启用该服务。
Desktop only,通过 STDIO。 STDIO 服务会启动本地进程,因此需要 SourceWeft 桌面宿主。
其他 MCP 客户端
参照 仓库 中的启动说明。
README
Heimdall
The watchman at your agent's gate.
A local, pre-flight security scanner for Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers — vet a server, or a whole agent config, before your agent trusts it. No account, no backend, and it never runs the server by default.
[npm] [CI] [downloads] [license] [node] [try in your browser]
MCP servers are unvetted code with a natural-language attack surface: their tool descriptions go straight to your model, and the server runs with your machine's access. Heimdall scores what a server can actually do — not what it claims — and cites the exact evidence. It runs entirely on your machine, needs no account, and never executes the server by default, so you can vet a package before you install it and gate it in CI.
Quickstart
No install, runs locally, nothing leaves your machine.
Or try it in your browser: caglarbozkurt.github.io/mcp-heimdall
— the full scanner runs 100% client-side (npm packages are fetched via jsDelivr; or paste a
tools.json / MCP config). No backend, nothing uploaded. Local paths and --handshake need the CLI.
What it checks
Every finding cites file:line or tool:name. Capability ≠ risk: raw power is shown as
an informational profile and never fails the scan — only hard gates and real anomalies do.
What makes it different
- Local, and it doesn't run the server. Everything is static and offline by default — no
account, no backend, nothing uploaded — and it never executes untrusted code unless you opt
into
--handshake(documented for a disposable VM only). You vet a package before installing. - Proves the path. Taint/data-flow turns "reads files AND has network = fail" into a concrete, located flow — so it doesn't cry wolf on a config read plus an unrelated API call.
- Sees the whole gate. It reasons across the set of servers you've configured — the cross-server exfil path neither server shows alone. Most scanners look at one at a time.
- A gate you control. Detectors emit facts; a policy you define turns them into pass / warn / fail. Deny capabilities, require provenance, add audited waivers, gate CI.
Usage
Options
Policies
Detectors emit facts; a policy turns them into the verdict. Ship the default, pick
strict, or write your own procurement/security criteria:
Example policy (policy.example.json)
Waivers carry a reason and optional expiry — an expired waiver lapses and re-flags.
Library
Also ships as a Claude Code skill (skill/) — vet a server in-conversation before installing.
Use it as an MCP server
Give your agent a scan_mcp_server tool so it can vet a server before connecting to it —
"scan this before you add it." Add Heimdall to your MCP client config:
The tool takes target (npm package, pypi:<name>, path, GitHub URL, tools.json, or a client
config), plus optional policy and online. It's static-only — it downloads but never
executes the server, and the code-execution modes (--handshake, validate) are intentionally
not exposed to the agent.
Use it in CI (GitHub Action)
Gate every pull request — scan your MCP config (or a server) and fail the build if it's
risky. Add this to .github/workflows/:
Runs entirely on your own CI runner — no backend, and free on public repos.
Validate (behavioral cross-check)
Static analysis says what a server can do. heimdall validate checks that against what it
actually does — it runs the server with a capability recorder preloaded (hooking
fs / net / http(s) / child_process / vm / fetch / process.env), drives each tool,
and diffs observed runtime behavior against the static flags:
- confirmed — flagged and observed (the static claim held up).
- not exercised — flagged but not triggered by naive args (a lower bound, not proof the flag is wrong).
- missed — observed but not flagged → a real static gap to review (or an incidental library side effect).
So it's trustworthy for finding false negatives (static misses); it does not disprove a flag.
Each server runs in a throwaway HOME + working directory with no inherited secrets, but it
still runs the server and calls its tools (network/exec side effects) — use a disposable VM/container.
Behavioral run over 200 real packages (benchmarks/validate-run.md):
55 booted, 34 exercised an observable capability. Of the capabilities servers actually
exercised at runtime, the static scan flagged 80.9% (55/68) — up from 75.8% after the
first run's misses became a fix-list (we widened dependency-based network detection, which
roughly halved the network misses). The misses that remain are structural: a capability
exercised inside a dependency's internals or a subprocess, which static analysis fundamentally
can't see — which is exactly why validate exists as the backstop. Honest recall, openly
reported, improving run over run.
Tested at scale
Run against 2,500 real MCP packages from the npm registry (benchmarks/): 1,726 scanned
in ~5 minutes, 0.7% flagged — robust on messy real-world code. Separately, it scores
100% on the small labeled fixture corpus (npm run eval, ~10 benign/malicious fixtures
including the Damn Vulnerable MCP project) — a calibration check, not a broad real-world
accuracy number; the field scans above are unlabeled and used only for robustness. Full log:
benchmarks/field-run.md.
What that scan says about the ecosystem your agent trusts:
The 0.7% flagged were driven by install-time code execution and prompt-injection — including real servers with hidden zero-width characters embedded in their tool descriptions, the kind of stealth tool-poisoning a keyword scanner sails past.
A robustness + distribution run is not an accuracy benchmark — the 2,500 servers are unlabeled. A flag means review this, not proven malicious.
Security & limitations
Heimdall is a heuristic pre-flight check, not a guarantee — a PASS isn't proof of safety.
Capability, provenance, and CVE analysis cover JS/TS and Python; injection is
language-agnostic. Proven taint/data-flow is JS/TS only — Python falls back to
capability co-presence (a conservative gate, not a proven flow).
Everything runs offline by default; --online is the one network call (it sends dependency
names + versions to OSV.dev, never your source), and the CVE match is against the declared
range, not a lockfile. --handshake runs untrusted code and is not a real sandbox. See
SECURITY.md for the full threat model and how to report a vulnerability.
Contributing
New detection rules are the highest-value contribution — see
CONTRIBUTING.md. By participating you agree to the
Code of Conduct.
License
MIT · built by Çağlar Bozkurt
来源:README.md,提交 1844fb2
工具
0版本历史
1- v0.5.1最新Sep 16, 2026
评分
已满足适用检查项的 50%
该评分衡量此收录条目的完整程度,依据注册中心条目、端点与公开来源计算得出。它不是对服务器本身的评价,也不表示服务器安全或当前可用:可连通性是带日期的检查结果,评分也不包含安装量或用户评价。
- 近 30 天内可连通25 分
请保持端点能够响应 MCP 握手;SourceWeft 每 30 天探测一次。
- 已声明认证方式10 分
请在注册中心条目中声明凭据请求头,或保持端点能够响应探测,以便判定其认证方式。
- 已列出工具15 分
请让服务器在无凭据时响应 tools/list,或发布可在沙箱中无凭据启动的软件包。
- 描述必需15 分
- 图标10 分
- 文档15 分
- 许可证10 分