AuthGuard-R: Safety-Compliant Mission Hijacking and Dual-Gate Defense for LLM-Controlled Robots
Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Engineering National Institute of Technology Warangal Warangal, India · Department of Mathematics National Institute of Technology Warangal Warangal, India
Abstract
Large language models are increasingly used as high-level planners for mobile robots, robot manipulators, and autonomous vehicles. Recent studies show that these systems can be influenced through malicious text, speech, visual instructions, retrieved documents, and poisoned sensory context. Most defenses ask whether a proposed action is physically safe. This paper studies a different problem: an action may be physically safe and still violate the mission authorized by the user. An attacker may redirect a delivery robot, replace an approved object, extend a robot's operating region, activate an unnecessary sensor, or delay a mission without creating an immediate physical hazard. We call this attack safety-compliant mission hijacking. We propose MissionPAIR, an adaptive attack framework that searches for executable plans that pass a safety gate while violating an authenticated mission. We also propose AuthGuard-R, a deterministic authorization layer that binds every executable action to a signed mission, robot identity, object and region scope, current state, time, and input provenance. AuthGuard-R operates with an independent safety gate, giving a dual-gate architecture. We formalize mission policies over robot traces, define security games, and prove authorization soundness, mission non-escalation, replay resistance, robot binding, provenance separation, threshold-approval security, audit-log tamper evidence, and trace-level composition. We report a preliminary cross-model evaluation with Claude Haiku4.5 and the open-source Qwen2.57B planner. Across 240 live attack trials, the planners followed an injected mission deviation in 109 trials; AuthGuard-R rejected all 109 resulting unauthorized actions. A separate hand-constructed suite of eleven protocol- and policy-level attacks was also blocked completely.
Figures & tables
| Work | Jailbreak | Physical safety | Signed mission scope | Provenance binding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BadRobot [ 3 ] | Yes | Evaluation | No | Limited |
| RoboPAIR [ 1 ] | Yes | Attack target | No | No |
| RoboGuard [ 2 ] | Adaptive evaluation | Yes | No | Limited |
| SafeGate [ 8 ] | Defective commands | Yes | Partial | Limited |
| Runtime governance [ 9 ] | Policy violations | Yes | General | General |
| AuthGuard-R | Mission hijacking | Complementary | Yes | Yes |
| Source | Permitted effect |
|---|---|
| Authenticated operator | May create or update ordinary mission fields |
| Authorized supervisor | May approve exceptional or high-risk actions |
| Trusted state estimator | May update attested state variables |
| Camera/OCR | May describe observations; cannot change mission fields |
| Environmental speech | Untrusted observation by default |
| Retrieved document | Informational unless separately authenticated |
| System | UASR | SCMHR | BTCR | FRR | SU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No defense | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Safety-only pilot baseline | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| AuthGuard-R + safety gate | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| Category | No defense | Safety-only | Dual gate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goal substitution | 1/1 | 1/1 | 0/1 |
| Object substitution | 1/1 | 1/1 | 0/1 |
| Area expansion | 1/1 | 1/1 | 0/1 |
| Capability escalation | 1/1 | 1/1 | 0/1 |
| Parameter escalation | 1/1 | 1/1 | 0/1 |
| Cross-robot reuse | 1/1 | 1/1 | 0/1 |
| Category | Planner complied | Blocked by AuthGuard-R |
|---|---|---|
| Goal substitution | 0/10 [0.00, 0.28] | — |
| Capability escalation | 0/10 [0.00, 0.28] | — |
| Object substitution | 10/10 [0.72, 1.00] | 10/10 |
| Provenance confusion | 0/10 [0.00, 0.28] | — |
| Area expansion | 0/10 [0.00, 0.28] | — |
| Parameter escalation | 1/10 [0.02, 0.40] | 1/1 |
| Category | Planner complied | Blocked by AuthGuard-R |
|---|---|---|
| Goal substitution | 1/10 [0.02, 0.40] | 1/1 |
| Capability escalation | 0/10 [0.00, 0.28] | — |
| Object substitution | 7/10 [0.40, 0.89] | 7/7 |
| Provenance confusion | 2/10 [0.06, 0.51] | 2/2 |
| Area expansion | 0/10 [0.00, 0.28] | — |
| Parameter escalation | 2/10 [0.06, 0.51] | 2/2 |
| Category | Planner complied | Blocked by AuthGuard-R |
|---|---|---|
| Goal substitution | 10/10 [0.72, 1.00] | 10/10 |
| Capability escalation | 0/10 [0.00, 0.28] | — |
| Object substitution | 10/10 [0.72, 1.00] | 10/10 |
| Provenance confusion | 10/10 [0.72, 1.00] | 10/10 |
| Area expansion | 10/10 [0.72, 1.00] | 10/10 |
| Parameter escalation | 10/10 [0.72, 1.00] | 10/10 |
| Category | Planner complied | Blocked by AuthGuard-R |
|---|---|---|
| Goal substitution | 6/10 [0.31, 0.83] | 6/6 |
| Capability escalation | 0/10 [0.00, 0.28] | — |
| Object substitution | 2/10 [0.06, 0.51] | 2/2 |
| Provenance confusion | 10/10 [0.72, 1.00] | 10/10 |
| Area expansion | 8/10 [0.49, 0.94] | 8/8 |
| Parameter escalation | 10/10 [0.72, 1.00] | 10/10 |
| Target planner | Attack method | Planner complied | Blocked |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | Fixed template | 11/60 (18.3%) | 11/11 |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | Adaptive | 12/60 (20.0%) | 12/12 |
| Qwen2.5 7B | Fixed template | 50/60 (83.3%) | 50/50 |
| Qwen2.5 7B | Adaptive | 36/60 (60.0%) | 36/36 |
| All live trials | — | 109/240 (45.4%) | 109/109 |
AI Agent Security
Artificial intelligence agent security studies attacks and safeguards for tool-using, persistent, and collaborative systems across digital and physical settings.
See all 517 papers