Securing Computer-Use Agents Against Branch Steering Attacks

The safety of LLM-based agents currently rests on alignment training and safety classifiers, neither of which can rule out that a sophisticated indirect prompt injection (IPI) goes through and causes significant harm. Recent work therefore builds agents with information-flow guarantees that rely on structured tool interfaces to interact with the environment. Computer Use Agents (CUAs) act visually on the computer screen, which does not provide a boundary between trusted first-party interfaces and untrusted, potentially attacker-authored content. Actions are equally ambiguous: a click may land on an application toolbar or a button controlled by an attacker. Treating the user as the source of trust and confirming each sensitive decision produces confirmation fatigue, with the risk of missing harmful actions. We introduce SA-CUA, a dual-LLM framework that generates a reliable trust boundary for CUAs by deriving conservative deterministic rules from the accessibility tree for unmasking trusted regions from the privileged LLM's screenshot, keeping trusted and untrusted content separated. Human interaction is only required for proper task specification in the beginning. During the task a robust endorsement channel allows values to pass from the untrusted to the trusted domain by verifying information via trusted channels. This allows the agent to autonomously handle tasks involving untrusted information. SA-CUA maintains much higher utility than CaMeL-CUA while keeping the attack success rate at zero.

Computer-use agents (CUAs) are agents powered by vision-language models (VLMs) that perceive a screen and operate an operating system through mouse, keyboard, and terminal interactions to automate everyday digital tasks. Their exposure to untrusted content creates a risk of indirect prompt injection (IPI), where an adversary embeds instructions in content the agent reads to redirect it toward actions that violate the user's intent. Evaluations based on fixed, hand-written injections may underestimate the risk posed by adaptive adversaries. We present SIR, a black-box self-improving IPI framework that (i) composes task-specific injections from a small library of reusable red-teaming principles stated in plain language and (ii) uses an iterative feedback loop to analyze unsuccessful attack trajectories and distill new, named principles that are retained in a shared library and reused across tasks. We target operating-system-level compromise and evaluate outcomes through deterministic checks on filesystem, service, and permission state rather than an LLM judge. An attack counts as successful only when both the adversarial objective and the benign user task are completed in the same execution. We evaluate three frontier CUAs, allowing SIR up to 10 attack attempts per case. It achieves joint attack success rates of 24% on Claude Opus 4.8 and 28% on Gemini 3.5 Flash, compared with 4% and 0%, respectively, for the benchmark's fixed, hand-written injection. The red-teaming principles discovered against one victim also improve attacks against other victims, including a different model family, without additional feedback.

Computer-use agents (CUAs) perform tasks across applications (such as desktops, mobile apps, and web browsers) by observing graphical interfaces and issuing commands such as clicks and keystrokes. These interfaces combine trusted controls and content with untrusted content needed for legitimate tasks. An adversary controlling this untrusted content can embed instructions or misleading visual cues to change the agent's intended action or redirect its commands to the wrong interface target. We formalize security requirements for both the agent's decisions and their execution through GUI commands. In an ideal execution model, we show that enforcing both requirements at each step protects execution traces. We instantiate this model in Secure-CUA, our system for secure CUA execution. Its key idea is to commit to an explicit per-action program, called an $\textit{action transaction}$, before accessing untrusted content. Each transaction fixes its queries to untrusted content and the permitted uses of their responses. The system masks untrusted regions and evaluates each transaction to produce the next action, using an isolated query model to answer its queries. It then locates the intended interface target using the masked interface. Under the model's assumptions, Secure-CUA is secure by design, while generating a new transaction at each step helps maintain high task utility by adapting to changing interfaces. We evaluate Secure-CUA under benign conditions on 400 WebArena tasks using three frontier models across $5$ seeds, yielding $6,000$ execution traces. Secure-CUA achieves an average task success rate of $53.55\%$, compared with $55.12\%$ for Vanilla-CUA and $13.17\%$ for CaMeL-CUA.