Who Speaks, Who Authorizes, Who Acts? Understanding Trust Boundaries in Multi-Agent LLMs

Autonomous LLM agents increasingly act on a user's behalf: they hold credentials, call tools and services, and spawn sub-agents that act further on their behalf. This turns a long-standing distributed-systems question -- who is authorized to do what, on whose authority -- into an urgent and largely unsolved problem, because the component driving each agent is a language model an adversary can hijack. We argue that agent security must be evaluated under an untrusted-model assumption: a correct system is one in which a fully prompt-injected agent still cannot exceed the authority explicitly delegated to it. Against this standard we make three contributions. First, we give a threat model for multi-agent delegation centered on four adversaries -- confused deputy, token theft and replay, prompt-injection privilege escalation, and compromised sub-agents -- and derive eight security requirements a governed agent system must meet. Second, we show the gap is real: a default agent runtime modeling common practice (broad bearer credentials, authorization gated inside the model) fails all four threats, and across four widely used frameworks -- LangGraph, CrewAI, AutoGen, and the Model Context Protocol (MCP) authorization model -- three provide no built-in confinement and one only partial; no existing standard alone covers the requirement set. Third, we implement and adversarially evaluate an authorization broker that closes the gap. It blocks all four threats; it resists 11 direct attacks on its design and accepts 0 of 200,000 forged tokens; it confines a compromised sub-agent to its delegated task (a mean of 1.5 reachable actions versus all 8,100 under bearer delegation, across 2,000 randomized scenarios); and it enforces at microsecond cost (about 2.6 microseconds per decision), negligible against model inference. These principles are also realized in production in VotalAI's LLM Shield.

Layered trust models for multi-agent LLM systems remain largely conceptual: they name which dimensions of trust matter but not how layers combine, how their importance is set at runtime, or how trust should govern agent actions. This gap matters because higher inter-agent trust raises task success while also enlarging exposure to exploitation, a tension formalized as the Trust-Vulnerability Paradox. We make a five-layer trust stack operational through three contributions. First, a cross-layer synergy operator propagates prerequisite-layer deficits into de- pendent layers, feeding a generalized-mean composite trust that recovers the weakest-link rule as a limiting case, with provable bounds. Second, per-layer importance weights are grounded in observed failures via a no-regret online estimator that tracks which layer is currently most responsible for harm. Third, Trust- Gated Capability Control issues short-lived, revocable capability grants only when composite trust and the relevant prerequisite layers clear capability-specific thresholds. We prove this mechanism breaks the paradox: a stealthy compromise that inflates behavioral trust while degrading a prerequisite layer cannot escalate privilege, and give a closed-form, provably conservative trust fixed point with a bounded-latency revocation guarantee. A numerical study with a sleeper adversary confirms the predictions: composite-trust bounds hold across 20,000 random draws, the analytic fixed point matches simulation within 0.007, and a compromised prerequisite layer triggers automatic revocation within a few interactions.

LLM agents choose tools and arguments from context that mixes user requests, tool outputs, retrieved records, memory, and untrusted text. Evidence can be relevant without being authorized to determine a decision, so a correct action need not be grounded only in permitted evidence. We introduce a target-specific authorization audit that labels context factors separately for each tool and argument target. Its primary test holds the task, proposition, position, and policy fixed while changing only the proposition's source authority. We then test behavior when valid evidence is weakened and use context-subset interactions as a secondary localization diagnostic. Across 450 controlled next-action tasks and multiple open-weight LLM families, trusted and untrusted variants produce different actions in 5.4 percent of competing cases versus 1.7 percent of supporting cases. Under controlled degradation, unauthorized competition is retained in a full-correct, mixed-error, clean-correct pattern in 2.4 percent of comparisons, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 2.1 to 3.0 percent. These are controlled stress-set rates, not deployment prevalence. The models respond to textual source-authority cues, but this does not prevent untrusted evidence from influencing their actions.