Cryptographically Secure Agent-to-Agent Communication in Multi-Agent Systems

Multi-agent systems (MAS), composed of networks of two or more autonomous AI agents, have become increasingly popular in production deployments, yet introduce security risks that do not arise in single-agent settings. Even if individual agents exhibit robust security, architectural decisions governing their coordination can create attack surfaces that have not been systematically characterized. In this work, we present an empirical study of how MAS design decisions shape the tradeoff between task performance and attack resistance. Across three agentic environments (browser, desktop, and code) and 13 architectural configurations, we use stagewise evaluations that distinguish planning refusal, execution-stage interception, partial harmful execution, and successful attack completion to study three key design choices: (i) agent roles, which determine how authority and responsibility are allocated; (ii) communication topology, which shapes how and when agents interact; and (iii) memory, which determines the context and state visibility accessible to each agent. We find that multi-agent architectures are more vulnerable than standalone agents in the majority of configurations, with attack success rates varying by up to 3.8x at comparable or higher benign accuracy, and that no single design is universally safer. These results motivate the development of further evaluations that move beyond the security properties of a single agent.

Multi-agent artificial intelligence systems or MAS are systems of autonomous agents that exercise delegated tool authority, share persistent memory, and coordinate via inter-agent communication. MAS introduces qualitatively distinct security vulnerabilities from those documented for singular AI models. Existing security and governance frameworks were not designed for these emerging attack surfaces. This study systematically characterizes the threat landscape of MAS and quantitatively evaluates 16 security frameworks for AI against it. A four-phase methodology is proposed: constructing a deep technical knowledge base of production multi-agent architectures; conducting generative AI-assisted threat modeling scoped to MAS cybersecurity risks and validated by domain experts; structuring survey plans at individual-threat granularity; and scoring each framework on a three-point scale against the cybersecurity risks. The risks were organized into 193 distinct main threat items across nine risk categories. The expected minimal average score is 2. No reviewed framework achieves majority coverage of any single category. Non-Determinism (mean score 1.231 across all 16 frameworks) and Data Leakage (1.340) are the most under-addressed domains. The OWASP Agentic Security Initiative leads overall at 65.3% coverage and in the design phase; the CDAO Generative AI Responsible AI Toolkit leads in development and operational coverage. These results provide the first empirical cross-framework comparison for MAS security and offer evidence-based guidance for framework selection. Please check back for information on the published journal version.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) are increasingly used to automate complex, distributed workflows. However, their inter-agent communication channels introduce new attack surfaces that remain poorly understood and are difficult to defend against. In this paper, we address how defenders should prioritize limited security effort to protect vulnerable communication channels before attacks are observed. This is motivated by our observation that the channel-level attack impact is highly non-uniform: a single compromised edge can account for up to 75% of total attack success. We introduce Mesa, a label-free framework for proactively ranking which MAS edges are most security-critical -- that is, most likely to affect the system's decision if compromised. Mesa combines six graph-theoretic metrics and two dynamic probes (ablation and masking) without requiring attack traces. We evaluate Mesa against a dynamic misinformation attack pipeline across three diverse MAS scenarios, eight network topologies, and five open-source LLMs from Qwen, Llama, and Gemma families. Mesa rankings correlate strongly with empirical per-edge attack success rate, achieving mean Spearman $ρ=+0.60$ (peaking at $+0.73$). In resource-constrained defense deployment, monitoring the top 10% of Mesa-ranked edges intercepts about 3x the successful attacks as random allocation. We further test Mesa under varying attacker and defender models and LangGraph workflows and characterize its limits under adaptive attacks and high-redundancy graphs. Overall, our results show that edge-level risk in MAS is often concentrated and predictable, allowing proactive hardening of multi-agent infrastructures.