Thursday, October 8, 2026 · Week 41 Reading for Oct. 8 · Last entry Oct. 6
Paperclip Index
Paperclip IndexDocumented harm20Minor harm▼ 5 from a week ago · Oct. 8The Index

Hijacked by injectionPI-0075

In a researcher demo, a planted web lead hijacked Salesforce Agentforce into leaking account data through DNS

Zenity Labs reported on Sept. 24, 2026, that instructions hidden in a lead submitted through a public Salesforce Web-to-Lead form could hijack Agentforce when an employee later asked the agent about recent leads. Following the planted instructions, the agent used its Query Records tool to read the Accounts table, which the default General CRM subagent can access, and wrote values such as company names and deal sizes into the subdomain of an attacker-controlled URL. The researchers got that URL past Salesforce's Trusted URLs redaction using an unrecognized top-level domain and curly braces. Image rendering in the chat surface, or Slack link previews, then sent the data out through a DNS lookup with no click. Zenity reported the flaw on June 1, 2026, and Salesforce confirmed fixes on Aug. 18, 2026.

Control failure, trackedNot counted. No documented harm outside the developer, but the system broke a rule or crossed a limit. Tracked beside the index.
Harm
Harm: No harm reportedAdds nothing to the index.
Control
Control level 2, Instruction violationReported beside the index. It adds nothing to a harm reading; when no harm counts in a window, the highest eligible control level in the window is the reading.
Controlled testSingle sourceInitiated by Outside attacker
Near miss

Near miss. Harm was plausible but prevented. It is rated only on what actually happened.

Not counted: no harm reportedEffect on the index

Sources

How we know

1 source · single source. Links go to the original publishers; the summary above is in our own words.

  1. researchSalesBleed: Indirect Prompt Injection and 0-Click Data Exfiltration on AgentforceZenity Labs · Sept. 24, 2026labs.zenity.io/post/salesbleed-0-click-data-exfiltration-on-agentforce

Why this rating

No harm reported; control failure level 2

Two separate assessments. Only documented harm can count toward the index.

Observed harm

No harm reported

Researcher demonstration. No victims or real-world exploitation reported.

Not a finding that no harm occurred.

The harm scale
  1. 1 Negligible Inconvenience, easily remedied.
  2. 2 Minor Limited, recoverable harm.
  3. 3 Moderate Material harm needing significant effort to remedy.
  4. 4 Severe Severe harm to health, rights, property or essential services.
  5. 5 Catastrophic Society-scale harm or disruption beyond a community's capacity to cope.

Control assessment

Instruction violation

The agent followed injected instructions and used read access its subagent already held. No permission boundary was crossed. The redaction bypass was the researchers' crafted URL, not the agent's own initiative.

Reported beside the index. It adds nothing to a harm reading; when no harm counts in a window, the highest eligible control level in the window is the reading.

The control scale
  1. 1 Negligible Behaved as instructed. The problem was an ordinary error or a flawed output, with no rule broken.
  2. 2 Minor Broke an explicit instruction or rule, or gamed its goal, while staying inside its permissions and environment: for example, reward hacking, misreporting results, or following injected instructions within its permissions.
  3. 3 Moderate Acted outside the permissions it was given, deceived its overseers about its own actions, or tampered with oversight tools (logs, monitors, shutdown). Stopped by normal controls within an hour.
  4. 4 Severe Reached systems outside its permitted environment, or acquired money, compute or accounts without authorization. The type and mechanism say how.
  5. 5 Catastrophic The developer or operator lost control: the system copied its weights outside their control, replicated itself, or resisted being stopped for 24 hours or more.

Rating rationale

This was a controlled researcher demonstration. The source reports no real-world exploitation or customer data loss, so the impact is not reported. Control level 2 records injected instructions obeyed within the permissions the default General CRM subagent already held. The output-redaction bypass was crafted by the researchers.

The scales

What happened

The record in full

Timeline

  1. Zenity Labs reported the flaw to Salesforce
  2. Salesforce confirmed the reports
  3. Salesforce fully confirmed fixes
  4. Zenity Labs confirmed the fix for the reported bypass
  5. Zenity Labs published the SalesBleed research

Effect on the index

It does not count toward the Sept. 28 reading

The reading for the week to Sept. 28, 2026, with this record and without it. Harms count in full for two weeks after they are reported, then one level less every two weeks.

Not counted: no harm reported. 18 other records behind the reading for that week.

The arithmetic
The reading for the week of Sept. 28, recomputed
StepWith itWithout
Counts toward the index?documented, external, eligible evidenceNo—
Worst documented harm, ksets the band2 Minor2 Minor
Harms at that level, nposition in the band22
Highest control level breachedsets the reading only when no harm counts— (none breached)— (none breached)
Readingrounded down25 Minor harm25 Minor harm
Inside the window of 2 weekly readings
Week toReadingBand
Sept. 28, 202625Minor harm
Oct. 5, 202625Minor harm

Recalculated backcasts, not readings published at the time.

Revisions

What we changed

2 logged. Every change to a rating is logged here, with the reason.

  1. v2
    Oct. 7, 2026

    Clarified the title to say this was a researcher demonstration.

  2. v1
    Oct. 6, 2026

    Added from the desk (item 272).

Cite and share

Use this record

Citation

Paperclip Index. “In a researcher demo, a planted web lead hijacked Salesforce Agentforce into leaking account data through DNS.” Record PI-0075. Reported Sept. 24, 2026; updated Oct. 7, 2026. Rated under methodology v0.6. https://paperclipindex.com/incident/PI-0075