Agentic Network Traffic Monitoring

The growing adoption of large language model (LLM) agents creates a need for network administrators and security teams to audit agent behavior within organizational networks without inspecting private user content. Network traffic offers an observable source of evidence, but how much it reveals about agent tasks and operations remains unclear. Existing traffic datasets lack the joint task and stage annotations needed to evaluate this question. We introduce ANT (Agent Network Traffic), a dataset providing agent behavior information at risk, scenario, and behavior primitive granularities alongside network traffic. ANT contains 3,114 execution episodes across 20 tasks and five scenarios, comprising 276,417 bidirectional flows and 40,049 behavior primitive segments organized into 47 macro groups. We establish a benchmark for agent risk identification, scenario recognition, and behavior primitive classification using 13 representative traffic analysis baselines. The results show that existing methods recover useful but uneven behavioral signals. They struggle to identify risk when malicious workflows resemble benign tasks and to distinguish scenarios with similar traffic patterns. Primitive classification is more reliable for frequent macro groups and those with distinctive traffic patterns than for rare or semantically similar groups. ANT provides a common basis for developing more precise auditing and forensic analysis of agent behavior from network traffic. Our data and code are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ant-main-suite-7BC0/.

To better assist users with completing challenging tasks, AI agents mediate communications, access data, and interact with different APIs. Many employers (and even nation-states) already provide their users with this technology. However, widespread adoption of AI agents creates a new risk to abuse access to user data for another goal: surveilling users. These users might not even have the ability or permission to control the actions and data accesses of the surveilling agents. We introduce and formalize the problem of agentic surveillance: the ability of an AI agent to analyze available information, craft a report, and send it out using available tools. To evaluate surveillance capabilities across different models, we create SurveilBench, a dataset of various reporting scenarios focusing on three domains: corporate, education, and police. We find that some models exhibit emergent (i.e., unprompted) tendencies to help surveillance, but they also report the attempts to surveil users to the government. Finally, we repurpose prompt injections for evading surveillance and develop three evasion techniques that hide from, deceive, or induce over-escalation in surveillance agents. We conclude that agentic surveillance can already be easily implemented and, therefore, call for a comprehensive technical, ethical, and legislative framework to protect users.

Agentic AI systems combine model decisions, mutable state, tool calls, and delegation to external agents. Monitoring them requires observations from different execution boundaries, while prevention requires control before an operation produces its effect. We present AgenticRV, a runtime-verification architecture that separates these boundaries from the monitoring formalism. Adapters emit canonical events; each monitor receives its own projection and abstraction; and a decision policy uses normalised verdicts to select a reaction supported by the responsible adapter. We formalise when observations suffice, monitor replacement preserves decisions, and blocking prevents unsafe effects. We also distinguish rejected attempts from completed effects, avoiding the assumption that a blocked request must leave every monitor in a permanent violation state. The Python implementation supports LangGraph, MCP, and A2A. A controlled LangGraph experiment combines an external Reelay temporal monitor with a programmatic report monitor; ablations show why both are needed for the selected requirements. Differential checks and cross-adapter tests provide further integration evidence. An LLM-driven incident-response example illustrates the same enforcement path, while existing microbenchmarks isolate framework costs. The results support reuse of monitoring methods at explicit control boundaries, subject to the stated observation and deployment assumptions.