Research explained

Lilli security report describes conventional application flaws reaching an AI knowledge base

Codewall’s reported research involved exposed endpoints and SQL injection; its scale and speed claims remain attributed to the researcher.

Published 29 Oct 2026 · Material update 17 Mar 2026 — last time the underlying evidence changed · Evidence: medium

What happened

The Stack reported that Codewall researchers accessed data associated with McKinsey’s Lilli assistant through exposed endpoints and a SQL-injection weakness. Codewall said its AI-assisted testing reached substantial chat and document metadata.

The reported record counts, time and cost are researcher claims, not independent BugSkan measurements. The access path described is an application-security failure around an AI system, rather than a vulnerability in every underlying model provider.

The report concerns a disclosed research finding, not established criminal theft of the entire dataset. Organizations with retrieval assistants should test API authentication, query construction and authorization across both source documents and conversation records.

Read the original source.

Next step

Test API authentication and record-level authorization around retrieval assistants.

What remains unknown

Open question
The sources reviewed do not establish whether your deployment was exploited.

Source references