Domain-Conditioned Safety in Frontier Computer-Using Agents: A 793-Episode Browser Benchmark, a Coding-Domain Cross-Reference, and a Reproducibility Audit of Recent Red-Teaming

Computer-use agents (CUAs) face a growing threat from indirect prompt injection, where adversarial instructions are planted in the environment such as web pages. In this paper, we introduce multi-step indirect prompt injection, a new attack class against CUAs in which the adversarial goal is decomposed into multiple innocuous-looking sub-steps and distributed across a chain of pages referenced along the agent's navigation path. We develop a pipeline to automatically decompose an adversarial goal under the constraint that the execution of the decomposed sub-steps must achieve the original goal while optimizing the innocuousness of each decomposed sub-step. With this pipeline, we build StepJack, a CUA safety benchmark with 480 test examples. On this benchmark, we evaluate six state-of-the-art CUAs and find that at a fixed decomposition depth, multi-step attacks raise attack success rate (ASR) on three of six CUAs, by up to 31.2 points (e.g., GPT-5.4-mini: 41.7% at single-step to 72.9% at three-step); averaged over the five CUAs that can reliably follow the reference chain (all but EvoCUA-32B), ASR rises from 31.3% at single-step to 36.9% at three-step. Dataset and code are available at https://github.com/BorealisAI/StepJack.

Computer use agents (CUAs) are vision-language models that perceive a screen and act on a real operating system through mouse, keyboard, and terminal, and they are increasingly deployed to automate everyday digital tasks. Because they can be exposed to untrusted content while operating, they are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI), in which an adversary plants instructions in content the agent will read and redirects it toward actions that violate the user's intent. Existing CUA safety benchmarks evaluate fixed injections written by hand, which may underestimate the risk posed by an adaptive adversary. We present SIR, a black box IPI attack that (i) composes stealthy injections from a small library of reusable principles stated in plain language and (ii) wraps composition in an iterative feedback loop that diagnoses the victim's failed trajectories and distills the bypasses into new, named strategies that are reapplied across tasks. Unlike prior red teaming of web agents, we target CUAs at the operating system level and score attacks with a fully deterministic oracle, using checks on filesystem, service, and permission state rather than an LLM judge. On experiment, we evaluate three frontier CUAs. Composing principles with feedback raises the attack success rate over a baseline written by hand, for example from 4% to 24% on Claude Opus 4.8 and from 0% to 28% on Gemini 3.5 Flash, while the benign task still completes. Principles discovered against one model further transfer to a different architecture with no additional feedback.

We introduce a red-teaming methodology that exposes harder-to-catch attacks for coding-agent monitors, suggesting that current practices may under-elicit attacks and overstate monitor performance. We identify three challenges with current red-teaming. First, mode collapse in attack generation, which we reduce with a novel attack taxonomy for broader coverage. Second, a conceive-execute gap: frontier LLMs can propose strong attack ideas or execute them, but not all at once. We mitigate this by decomposing attack construction into strategy generation, execution, and post-hoc trajectory refinement. Third, manual elicitation is costly to scale, which we address with our semi-automated red-teaming pipeline. Applied to BashArena, an AI control setting for tool-using coding agents, this pipeline produces MonitoringBench, a benchmark of 2,644 attack trajectories for evaluating monitor capabilities and failure modes. Our pipeline produces more diverse and stronger attacks: Opus-4.5 monitor's catch rate falls from 94.9% on elicited-only Opus attacks to 60.3% on our best refined attacks, with larger drops for several mid-tier monitors. Attacks optimized against three development monitors generalize to ten held-out monitors, with catch rates generally increasing with monitor capability. Using this benchmark, we provide a snapshot of the current monitor capabilities and find that frontier monitors often detect suspicious actions but fall for persuasion or fail to calibrate suspiciousness scores appropriately, suggesting tractable paths for improvement. MonitoringBench provides both a static benchmark for current tool-use monitors and a reusable methodology for refreshing these evaluations as agents and monitors improve.