Organizations: Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China · Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China · University of Oxford, UK · Chinese University of Hong Kong, China · State University of New York at Buffalo, USA
Abstract
This position paper argues that the Authorization-Execution Gap (AEG) is a major safety and security problem in open-world agents. The AEG is the divergence between what a principal intends to authorize and what an open-world agent ultimately executes. Because such agents act autonomously across tools, persistent state, and multi-agent handoffs, even small instances of authorization divergence can cause harm that is difficult or impossible to undo. We argue that many observed agent failures can be traced to three structural sources of AEG: delegation-level incompleteness, channel-level corruption, and composition-level fragmentation. The same observed failure may arise from any of these sources. Without identifying the source, a defense targeting the symptom alone cannot address the underlying cause. Agent safety and security should therefore emphasize source-oriented diagnosis and defense. Because the structural sources of AEG arise dynamically during execution, this approach necessarily requires authorization integrity checks applied during execution, rather than relying solely on one-shot upfront filtering or post-hoc audit. For NeurIPS, the implication is that papers on open-world agents should report not only outcome-level metrics such as task success or attack resistance, but also process-level evidence showing where AEG was detected, constrained, and attributed to a structural source during execution.
Agent security is widely treated as a question about action content. Defenses ask whether an instruction looks malicious. Benchmarks ask whether an agent performs a harmful sounding action. \textbf{We argue that agent security is fundamentally a contextual problem, and that the current content based framing systematically misdefines it.} A command to ``delete user data'' might be a routine administrative request or a prompt injection attacking production systems, and the content alone cannot distinguish the two. Authorization context can. Across every injection task in AgentDojo and WASP, the same action is one an authenticated user would plausibly request in a routine workflow, which makes the conflation a structural property of evaluating security through content. We operationalize contextual security through four properties that must hold jointly and be evaluated continuously across the agent's trajectory. Source Authorization asks who issued the command. Task Alignment specifies the agent's authorized objective. Action Alignment evaluates whether each action serves that objective. Data Isolation governs information flows across privilege boundaries. Under this reframing, indirect prompt injection becomes a Source Authorization violation. Snapshot benchmarks are structurally incapable of evaluating Data Isolation. Existing defenses are reorganized around the property they actually approximate. The contextual reframing changes which defenses are coherent, which evaluations measure something useful, and which attack patterns evaluation can see at all.
We take the position that agent security must be approached as a systems problem: the AI model powering the agent must be treated as an untrusted component, and security invariants must be enforced at the system level. Through this lens, efforts to increase model robustness (the dominant viewpoint in the community) are insufficient on their own. Instead, we must complement existing efforts with techniques from the systems security domain. Based on our experience as cybersecurity researchers in operating systems, networks, formal methods, and adversarial machine learning, we articulate a set of core principles, grounded in decades of systems security research, that provide a foundation for designing agentic systems with predictable guarantees. As evidence, we analyze eleven representative real-world attacks on agents and discuss how systems principles, if realized, could have prevented these attacks. We also identify the research challenges that stand in the way of implementing these principles in agents.
Mihai Christodorescu, Earlence Fernandes, Ashish Hooda +11
AI coding agents now read repositories, call tools, and execute shell commands with limited human oversight, and a fast-growing body of work studies whether the execution layer around them is actually safe. That literature is scattered. Papers on sandbox isolation, capability and access control, policy enforcement, time-of-check-to-time-of-use (TOCTOU) races, Model Context Protocol (MCP) threats, identity delegation, execution provenance, network egress control, and static analysis of agent-generated code are published independently and rarely cite one another. We systematize 39 papers published between 2023 and 2026 into 17 categories, each verified directly against its source. The same verification protocol also confirms four disclosed, patched CVEs directly affecting production agent harnesses. Reading across categories surfaces five cross-cutting gaps that no single paper addresses. (1) Isolation architectures and capability models are almost never evaluated against one another on a shared benchmark. (2) Policy-enforcement studies report failure rates from 69% to 98% of real denylists, yet no isolation paper re-evaluates its own defense under that adversarial setting. (3) TOCTOU and MCP threats are analyzed as separate literatures despite both being instances of the same state-validation problem. (4) Every enforcement mechanism assumes an honest policy author, leaving policy-authoring error itself unaddressed. (5) Benign but out-of-scope agent actions occurring at rates up to 17.1% under realistic prompting are addressed by no access-control or capability paper in the corpus. Existing broader surveys of agentic AI security discuss sandboxing only as one item among many defenses, leaving execution security without a dedicated systematization. This paper is written to fill that gap. We conclude with a research agenda directed at the five gaps.