When the Agent Becomes the Kernel: A Systematization of Security on the Path to AI-Native Operating Systems
Organizations: Huawei
Abstract
Large language model agents are now privileged principals that take consequential actions: editing code repositories, operating inboxes, completing purchases. Their authority is kernel-grade, but it comes without what classical systems security requires: a trusted mediator interposed on every access. Operating-system vendors are now rebuilding the platform around this de-facto agent kernel, inheriting complete mediation as a design problem. We systematize the security of such systems around a single distinction: a crossing mediated over provenance admits a deterministic check, while one over content semantics does not. A trust-boundary taxonomy locates where mediation must occur and isolates the central mediation gap at two kinds of semantic judgment: distinguishing data from instruction in untrusted input, and an authorized action from an unauthorized one. We argue that this gap leaves an irreducible residual of undetected attacks wherever inputs and actions are not restricted in advance to an enumerated set. The same distinction makes attack-success statistics actionable, placing each number on a spectrum from deployment debt (a sound deterministic mediator left unused) to a structural gap (no such mediator known). We systematize defenses across runtime monitoring, architectural separation, and authorization, and show that current evaluations tend to overstate deployed security through evaluation-validity failures. Finally, we carry that analysis forward beyond the de-facto kernel, to an architecture in which the model itself becomes the arbitration core, and derive the design constraints, open challenges, and research agenda for a security-first AI-native OS.
Figures & tables
| Dimension | Pirch et al. [6] | Dehghantanha & Homayoun [28] | LASM [27] | Kim et al. [25] | Ling et al. [26] | This work |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organizing principle | OS analogy: isolation, privilege separation, mediation | Attack surfaces along the data-flow pipeline | Seven stack layers temporality | Design dimensions attack vectors risks | Lifecycle stages | Trust-boundary crossings, each placed by what its mediator must judge |
| Role given to the OS frame | Runtime as kernel, model as untrusted user; asks which OS techniques transfer | Deterministic execution kernel with the model as untrusted proposer, as a recommended pattern | Absent | Kernel–user analogy for planner/processor separation only | Absent | Asks whether an always-invoked mediator for the model’s semantic crossings can exist |
| Limit of runtime monitoring | Absent | Empirical — guardrails bypassable | Layer-locality argument: a control at one layer cannot see an attack at another | Empirical — detectors bypassed by adaptive attacks | Partial — over-blocking and observability dependence noted | Structural — residual argued irreducible where the mediator must judge meaning |
| Evaluation validity | Absent | Covered — evaluation protocol with validity controls | Partial — methodological issues of existing evaluations | Partial — benchmark caveats | Partial — benchmark gaps | Covered — reliability, evaluation-awareness, confidentiality axis |
| Object of study | Deployed open-source agents | Deployed agentic systems | Deployed LLM agents | Deployed agentic systems | Deployed LLM agents | Deployed agents, then the AI-native OS |
| Boundary chain (primary first) | Attack class | Representative attacks | Deployed vs. lab | Mediation available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B0 | Direct/indirect prompt injection | Greshake [41]; HouYi [42]; public IPI competition [43] | Deployed (EchoLeak, CVE-2025-32711 [44]) | Structural gap |
| B0 B2a | Web, GUI, and multimodal injection (malicious DOM, accessibility tree, screenshot, image/audio) | WebInject [45]; accessibility-tree IPI [46]; EIA [47]; VPI-Bench [48]; Bagdasaryan [49] | Deployed (browser and computer-use products) | Structural gap deployment debt |
| B0 (persistent) | Corpus poisoning | Zhong [50]; PoisonedRAG [51]; CorruptRAG [52] | Lab | Structural gap |
| B0 (persistent) | Self-written-memory poisoning | AgentPoison [53]; MINJA [54]; MemoryGraft [55]; Memory-control-flow [56] | Lab | Structural gap |
| B0 (persistent) | Retriever-targeted passage poisoning | BadRAG [57]; Joint-GCG [58] | Lab | Structural gap |
| B1 | Selective disclosure; goal drift | Deception taxonomy [59]; upward deception [60]; in-context scheming [61]; goal-drift evaluation [62] | Lab | Structural gap |
| Benchmark | Boundary | Harm scored | Scoring | Harness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgentDojo [175] | B0 B2a | hijacked action | deterministic check | author scaffold |
| Agent Security Bench (ASB) [176] | B0/B2a | hijacked action | deterministic check | author scaffold |
| InjecAgent [89] | B0 B2a | hijacked action; data stealing | deterministic check | recorded tool responses, no execution |
| WASP [84] | B0 B2a | hijacked action | deterministic check | web replicas |
| MCPTox [38] | B2c | hijacked action | deterministic check | real MCP servers |
| RedTeamCUA [177] | B0 B3 | hijacked action; file exfiltration | deterministic check | OS VM + web replicas |
| Defense | Boundary | Reported residual / efficacy | Stated cost | Evaluation condition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Probabilistic mediator — the run-time decision is a classifier’s | ||||
| Spotlighting (§7.1) [136] | B0 | ASR >50% ~2% | input encoding | vendor self-report, static |
| Constitutional Classifiers [95] | B0 | jailbreak 86% 4.4% | +0.38% over-refusal | vendor self-report, red-team |
| AIR, layer-wise privilege signal (§7.1) [140] | B0/B1 | ~9.2 ASR reduction | training-time change | author-report, static |
| SLEIGHT-Bench monitor [124] | B2/B3 | 32% catch @ 1% FPR | FPR budget pinned | vendor benchmark, adversarial |
| Deterministic mediator — the semantic judgment was made offline |
| Criterion (§2.2) | Change to the mediator | Invariant the de-facto form holds | Boundary | Design constraint | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Intelligence at the architectural core | passes to the model | Resource arbitration and state integrity are enforced by a deterministic mechanism beneath the model | B3; availability (§5.8) | Keep enforcement in a mechanism the model may propose to but not rewrite | Both forms stated (§2.2); every built design enforces beneath the model (AIOS, SchedCP); no attacked instance |
| (2) Intent-based control | remit widens | The privileged interface is an enumerable operation set, so underspecified intent is contingent on how a task was delegated | B1 | Supply a specification language for authorized intent that admits a deterministic check over the induced action set | §4.1 argument; two stated designs (AgentOS, AgenticOS); no attacked instance |
| (3) Persistent, cross-session context | passes to the model | Eviction is a data operation, not an authority-bearing one | B0 via persistent state | Gate retain and evict on provenance; content must not decide its own retention | Poisoning deployed (§5.2); no prototype at the retention layer |
| (4) Autonomous multi-step execution | remit widens | Irreversible operations are unreachable without human assent, over a statically enumerable set | B1; B2a | Make reversibility machine-decidable over sequences before raising the gate above the operation; keep the confirmation surface unshapeable by the agent | Gate deployed (§8.2); approval surface attacked (EchoLeak); calculus prospective |
| (5) OS-level lifecycle management | remit widens | Registration and delegation are the ecosystem’s concern, not the kernel’s | B2c; B4 | Own registration and delegation as kernel obligations | Deployed (§5.4 registration; §7.3 delegation) |
| (6) Mutually-distrusting multiplexing | remit widens; passes to the model with (1) | Principals sharing an inference core are held apart by the substrate | B5 | Partition on provenance, by a mechanism outside the model | Serving-layer attacks published (§5.7); prospective at the agent kernel |
| # | Open problem | Boundary | Origin | Existing work | Success criterion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Authorized-intent specification | B1 | intent-based control | AgentOS at the free-form end, AgenticOS at the pinned end [15], [17]; tool-call policy languages (Progent, §8.1) at the pinned end | A language precise enough for a deterministic check over the induced action set, loose enough to keep the delegated discretion |
| 2 | Reversibility decidable over sequences | B2a | autonomous execution; compounded by intent-based control | R1–R3 stated (§8.2); GoEX undo runtime [163] | A type system over action sequences and flow labels matching practitioner judgment on a published trajectory corpus, disagreement rate reported |
| 3 | Confirmation surface the agent cannot shape | B2a | autonomous execution | The attack is deployed (EchoLeak, §8.2) | A trusted path whose contents the confirmed agent cannot write |
| 4 | Which arbitration decisions may enter the model | B3; availability | intelligence at the architectural core | Every built design enforces beneath the model (AIOS, SchedCP; §10.2) | A stated criterion for the line, or a model-owned scheduler provably bounding starvation, amplification, and eviction integrity with no mechanism beneath |
| 5 | Provenance-gated retention; pinned spans | B0, persistent | persistent context | MemLineage gates actions, not retention (§7.2) | Retain and evict decisions attributable to content standing and unwritable by content; an account of who may pin a span |
| 6 | Cross-tenant write channel | B5, persistent | persistent context with multiplexing | Every channel of §5.7 is a read; cache injection is shown against the cache, not another tenant’s context | A demonstrated or bounded write from one tenant into another’s retained context |
Cybersecurity
Cybersecurity develops methods to protect digital and cyber-physical systems from attacks, vulnerabilities, data loss, and misuse.
See all 355 papers