The Same Zero: Why Identical ASR Can Imply Different Guarantees in LLM-Agent Security

Large language model (LLM) agents are rapidly moving from conversational interfaces to software components that plan, invoke tools, maintain memory, and act on external environments. This transition changes the nature of security risk. In agentic settings, failures are no longer limited to unsafe text generation. Untrusted content may redirect control flow, misuse tool privileges, corrupt persistent state, leak sensitive information, or trigger harmful external actions. At the same time, research on LLM agent security is expanding quickly but remains fragmented across attack families, defense layers, application domains, and evaluation settings. This paper synthesizes 247 papers through a lifecycle-based, systems-oriented framework that models agent security around the interaction of information flow, delegated authority, and persistent state. We organize the literature around four questions: how LLM agent security should be modeled, which threat surfaces and attack families dominate, what defenses have been proposed and with what tradeoffs, and how security claims are evaluated. We find that prompt injection and tool-mediated control-flow hijacking still dominate the field, while persistent state corruption and multi-agent propagation are becoming central emerging concerns. We further find that current defenses provide useful building blocks but remain weakly compositional, and that existing benchmarks still underrepresent long-horizon, stateful, and deployment-sensitive risks. We argue that secure LLM agents require explicit trust boundaries, principled privilege control, provenance-aware state management, and evaluation practices aligned with realistic operational settings.

Large language model (LLM) agents are becoming an integral part of the software development lifecycle, and the capabilities granted to them allow an agent to act with the user's authority on any resource it can access. The reach that gives an agent its utility is equally available to an attacker who can steer it. Anything an agent ingests can carry an injected instruction, and since the model does not reliably distinguish instructions from data, indirect prompt injection should be mitigated by mediating the effects the agent produces. Such mediation faces a structural difficulty. Legitimate work and the first step of an attack often look alike when an individual action is observed, and what separates them lies later in the trace, so a monitor limited to allow and deny is forced to decide before the evidence accumulates. We present Kairos, a reference monitor at the isolation boundary of an unmodified, opaque agent, where a tool call, a shell command, and a script the agent writes all cross the boundary as the same file and network operations, so that confinement holds regardless of the agent's behavior. A declarative policy that states which sources are trusted decides most effects deterministically and defers the rest, which are held while the agent continues speculatively. A decision oracle with bounded authority, such as a language model or a human, releases or refuses each deferred effect on the trace. Across three benchmarks and three agent models, Kairos outperforms existing defenses in the trade-off between attack success and utility. In particular, on AgentDojo, it reduces attack success from 47.0% to 2.7% while its benign utility stays at the level of the undefended agent.

This position paper argues that enforcing LLM agent safety within a single abstraction layer is not merely suboptimal but categorically insufficient for deployed LLM agents -- a structural consequence of how agent execution works, not a contingent limitation of current systems. The three dimensions that jointly constitute safe operation -- semantic intent and policy compliance, environmental validity, and dynamical feasibility -- each depend on a strictly distinct set of information that becomes available at different stages of execution. No single guardrail can certify all three. We argue that the community must respond with a contract-based architecture in which each safety dimension is enforced by an independently certified layer whose probabilistic guarantee satisfies the next layer's assumption. We sketch such an architecture and derive the compositional system-level safety bounds it admits via the chain rule of probability. Three open problems stand between this and a deployable standard: bound estimation from non-i.i.d.\ traces, graceful degradation of contracts under deployment drift, and extension to multi-agent settings -- the most important unfinished business in LLM agent runtime assurance.