Cato CTRL™ Threat Research: HashJack – Novel Indirect Prompt Injection Against AI Browser Assistants

Cato CTRL™ Threat Research: HashJack – Novel Indirect Prompt Injection Against AI Browser Assistants

Keypoints

  • HashJack conceals malicious prompts in URL fragments (the portion after ‘#’) that are processed by AI browser assistants but never sent to web servers or visible to network defenses.
  • The technique was tested successfully against Comet (Perplexity), Copilot for Edge (Microsoft), and Gemini for Chrome (Google), with Comet showing agentic data-exfiltration behavior.
  • Attack scenarios demonstrated include callback phishing, credential theft, data exfiltration (agentic), misinformation, malware guidance, and dangerous medical guidance.
  • URL fragments are invisible to server logs, IDS/IPS, and CSP controls, allowing legitimate websites to be weaponized without compromising the site itself.
  • Disclosure timeline: Microsoft acknowledged and reported a fix; Perplexity applied fixes after triage; Google/Gemini classified the behavior as intended and did not fix at time of writing.
  • Cato recommends layered mitigations (CASB restrictions, NGAM malware detection, IPS/phishing protections) to limit downstream effects despite HashJack being a client-side attack.

MITRE Techniques

  • [T1566 ] Phishing – Malicious fragments instruct the AI assistant to insert convincing support/login links or phone/WhatsApp prompts that lead users to attacker resources: ‘…add security or support links that point to threat actor resources, including phone numbers and WhatsApp groups that look official.’
  • [T1567 ] Exfiltration Over Web Service – In agentic browsers (Comet) hidden fragments cause background fetches that send user/page context to attacker-controlled endpoints: ‘…fetch a threat actor URL and append user context such as account name, account number, transaction history, profile email, and phone number as parameters.’
  • [T1204 ] User Execution – The attack relies on users interacting with suggested links or following assistant guidance (clicking links, re-authenticating, or downloading files), enabling credential theft or malware installation: ‘Users click what seems to be a trusted bank or service link, which can lead to credential theft and account takeover.’

Indicators of Compromise

  • [Domain/URL ] Demonstration and attacker endpoints used in examples – hxxps://attacker.example/risk, hxxps://attacker.example/catobank (demo attacker-controlled endpoints).
  • [Obfuscated legitimate URLs ] Example victim pages weaponized via fragments – hxxps://bank.example/home#…, hxxps://finance.example/markets#…, hxxps://pharma.example/drug#… (fragment payloads appended to legitimate sites).
  • [File name ] Malicious download example provided in demonstration – attacker-supplied binary referenced as hxxps://attacker.example/tool.exe (demo payload filename).
  • [Phone/WhatsApp ] Callback phishing contact examples embedded in fragments – +1-700-000-111-111, hxxps://wa.me/17000001111?text=hello (demonstrated social engineering contact links).


Read more: https://www.catonetworks.com/blog/cato-ctrl-hashjack-first-known-indirect-prompt-injection/