AgentReadyHomeAgent Listing

← Inkfox AI

Inkfox AI — agentic threat model

5.0AIVSS 5.0 · Medium

Inkfox AI presents extremely low agentic risk due to its lack of autonomy, planning, memory, and tool-use capabilities. The primary security concerns are limited to model abuse (generating inappropriate content) and infrastructure denial-of-service due to the unauthenticated, free nature of the service.

OWASP AIVSS score rationale

AIVSS = (CVSS_Base + AARS) × Mitigation_Factor, where AARS = (10 − CVSS_Base) × (Factor_Sum / 10) × ThM
CVSS base 4.3AARS uplift 0.72Factor sum 1.4/10Threat ×0.9Mitigation ×1.0
Autonomy of Action
0.10
Goal-Driven Planning
0.00
Self-Modification
0.00
Dynamic Tool Use
0.00
Persistent Memory
0.00
Contextual Awareness
0.10
Dynamic Identity
0.00
Multi-Agent Interactions
0.00
Non-Determinism
0.70
Opacity & Reflexivity
0.50

Scored with the canonical OWASP AIVSS formula (AIVSS calculator reference); agentic risk factors estimated from the agent’s described capabilities.

MAESTRO 7-layer threat model

Per-layer threats for this agent. Layers tagged “not certain from listing” are general, caveated commentary where the public description didn’t pin that layer.

L1 · Foundation Models✓ mapped

The system utilizes multiple third-party foundation models including Flux, Nano Banana 2.0, GPT Image 2.0, and Seedream. Primary threats include adversarial prompt injection to bypass safety filters (generating NSFW or copyrighted content) and potential model license non-compliance.

L2 · Data Operations⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — The data pipeline, training data sources, and image caching mechanisms are not disclosed. There is a risk of copyright infringement or data lineage gaps depending on how the underlying models were trained and if user prompts are stored.

L3 · Agent Frameworks⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — Inkfox AI appears to be a simple single-turn generator rather than an agentic framework. There is no evidence of complex orchestration, planning, memory, or tool-calling frameworks that could be exploited.

L4 · Deployment & Infrastructure⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — The hosting environment, API endpoints, and sandboxing of model execution are undisclosed. The lack of authentication makes the backend highly vulnerable to resource exhaustion, API scraping, and DDoS attacks.

L5 · Evaluation & Observability⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — It is unclear if there are input/output guardrails to filter out harmful prompts or generated images, or if any logging/monitoring is performed to detect automated abuse.

L6 · Security & Compliance (cross-cutting)✓ mapped

The tool explicitly states 'no sign-up or login required' and 'no personal data sharing'. While this minimizes privacy compliance risks (GDPR/CCPA) regarding user PII, it eliminates user-level access controls, making policy enforcement and abuse tracking extremely difficult.

L7 · Agent Ecosystem⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — There is no multi-agent interaction, marketplace integration, or external ecosystem connectivity described. The tool operates strictly as a standalone web application.

MAESTRO — the 7-layer agentic threat-modeling framework (Cloud Security Alliance / Ken Huang).