AI Agent Safety Benchmarks

LLM-as-a-Judge pipelines have become the de facto evaluator for agent safety, yet existing benchmarks treat their verdicts as ground-truth proxies without checking whether the verdicts depend on the agent's behavior or merely on how the evaluation policy happens to be worded. We argue that any trustworthy safety judge must satisfy a basic property we call policy invariance, and we operationalize it as three testable principles: rubric-semantics invariance under certified-equivalent rewrites, rubric-threshold invariance under intentional strict-to-lenient shifts, and ambiguity-aware calibration so that verdict instability concentrates on genuinely ambiguous cases. Instantiating these principles as a stress-test protocol with four agent-class judges on trajectories drawn from ASSEBench and R-Judge, we surface a previously unmeasured failure mode: today's judges respond to meaningful normative shifts and to meaningless structural rewrites with comparable strength, and cannot tell the two apart. Content-preserving policy rewrites flip up to 9.1% of verdicts above baseline jitter, and 18-43% of all observed flips occur on unambiguous cases under such rewrites, so existing safety scores conflate what the agent did with how the evaluator was prompted. Beyond the diagnosis, we contribute the Policy Invariance Score and the Judge Card reporting protocol, which expose an order-of-magnitude spread in judge reliability that is invisible to accuracy-only leaderboards. We release the protocol and code so that future agent-safety benchmarks can audit their own evaluators rather than trust them by default.

Modern AI agents execute real-world side effects through tool calls such as file operations, shell commands, HTTP requests, and database queries. A single unsafe action, including accidental deletion, credential exposure, or data exfiltration, can cause irreversible harm. Existing defenses are incomplete: post-hoc benchmarks measure behavior after execution, static guardrails miss obfuscation and multi-step context, and infrastructure sandboxes constrain where code runs without understanding what an action means. We present AgentTrust, a runtime safety layer that intercepts agent tool calls before execution and returns a structured verdict: allow, warn, block, or review. AgentTrust combines a shell deobfuscation normalizer, SafeFix suggestions for safer alternatives, RiskChain detection for multi-step attack chains, and a cache-aware LLM-as-Judge for ambiguous inputs. We release a 300-scenario benchmark across six risk categories and an additional 630 independently constructed real-world adversarial scenarios. On the internal benchmark, the production-only ruleset achieves 95.0% verdict accuracy and 73.7% risk-level accuracy at low-millisecond end-to-end latency. On the 630-scenario benchmark, evaluated under a patched ruleset and not claimed as zero-shot, AgentTrust achieves 96.7% verdict accuracy, including about 93% on shell-obfuscated payloads. AgentTrust is released under the AGPL-3.0 license and provides a Model Context Protocol server for MCP-compatible agents.

Coding agents often pass per-prompt safety review yet ship exploitable code when their tasks are decomposed into routine engineering tickets. The challenge is structural: existing safety alignment evaluates overt requests in isolation, leaving models blind to malicious end-states that emerge from sequenced compliance with innocuous-looking requests. We introduce MOSAIC-Bench (Malicious Objectives Sequenced As Innocuous Compliance), a benchmark of 199 three-stage attack chains paired with deterministic exploit oracles on deployed software substrates (10 web-application substrates, 31 CWE classes, 5 programming languages) that treats both exploit ground truth and downstream reviewer protocol as first-class evaluation axes. On this benchmark, nine production coding agents from Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Moonshot, Zhipu, and Minimax compose innocuous tickets at 53-86% end-to-end ASR with only two refusals across all staged runs. In a matched direct-prompt experiment over four frontier Claude/Codex agents, vulnerable-output rates fall to 0-20.4%: Claude primarily refuses, while Codex primarily hardens rather than emitting the vulnerable implementation - ticket staging silences both defense modes simultaneously. Downstream, code reviewer agents approve 25.8% of these confirmed-vulnerable cumulative diffs as routine PRs, and a full-context implementation protocol closes only 50% of the staged/direct gap, ruling out context fragmentation as the sole explanation. As a deployable but non-adaptive mitigation, reframing the reviewer as an adversarial pentester reduces evasion across the evaluated reviewer subset; pentester framed evasion ranges from 3.0% to 17.6%, and an open-weight Gemma-4-E4B-it reviewer under this framing detects 88.4% of attacks on the dataset with a 4.6% false-positive rate measured on 608 real-world GitHub PRs.

Tool-using agent systems powered by large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across web, app, operating-system, and transactional environments. Yet existing safety benchmarks still emphasize explicit risks, potentially overstating a model's ability to judge deceptive or ambiguous trajectories. To address this gap, we introduce ROME (Red-team Orchestrated Multi-agent Evolution), a controlled benchmark-construction pipeline that rewrites known unsafe trajectories into more deceptive evaluation instances while preserving their underlying risk labels. Starting from 100 unsafe source trajectories, ROME produces 300 challenge instances spanning contextual ambiguity, implicit risks, and shortcut decision-making. Experiments show that these challenge sets substantially degrade safety-judgment performance, with hidden-risk cases remaining particularly non-trivial even for recent frontier models. We further study ARISE (Analogical Reasoning for Inference-time Safety Enhancement), a retrieval-guided inference-time enhancement that retrieves ReAct-style analogical safety trajectories from an external analogical base and injects them as structured reasoning exemplars. ARISE improves judgment quality without retraining, but is best viewed as a task-specific robustness enhancement rather than a standalone safety guarantee. Together, ROME and ARISE provide practical tools for stress-testing and improving agent safety judgment under deceptive distribution shifts.

Reinforcement learning (RL) trained language model agents with tool access are increasingly deployed in coding assistants, research tools, and autonomous systems. We introduce the Reward Hacking Benchmark (RHB), a suite of multi-step tasks requiring sequential tool operations with naturalistic shortcut opportunities such as skipping verification steps, inferring answers from task-adjacent metadata, or tampering with evaluation-relevant functions. RHB supports independent and chained task regimes, where chain length acts as a proxy for longer-horizon agent behavior. We evaluate 13 frontier models from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and DeepSeek. Exploit rates range from 0% (Claude Sonnet 4.5) to 13.9% (DeepSeek-R1-Zero), varying sharply by post-training style. A controlled sibling comparison (DeepSeek-V3 vs. DeepSeek-R1-Zero) shows RL post-training is associated with substantially higher reward hacking (0.6% vs. 13.9%), with consistent gaps across all four task families. We identify six exploit categories and find that 72% of reward hacking episodes include explicit chain-of-thought rationale, suggesting models often frame exploits as legitimate problem-solving. Simple environmental hardening reduces exploit rates by 5.7 percentage points (87.7% relative) without degrading task success. Models with near-zero exploit rates on standard tasks show elevated rates on harder variants, suggesting that production-aligned post-training appears to suppress reward hacking only below a complexity threshold where honest solutions remain tractable.

This report presents a comparative evaluation of DKnownAI Guard in AI agent security scenarios, benchmarked against three competing products: AWS Bedrock Guardrails, Azure Content Safety, and Lakera Guard. Using human annotation as the ground truth, we assess each guardrail's ability to detect two categories of risks: threats to the agent itself (e.g., instruction override, indirect injection, tool abuse) and requests intended to elicit harmful content (e.g., hate speech, pornography, violence). Evaluation results demonstrate that DKnownAI Guard achieves the highest recall rate at 96.5% and ranks first in true negative rate (TNR) at 90.4%, delivering the best overall performance among all evaluated guardrails.

Multimodal Large Language Models are increasingly adopted as autonomous agents in interactive environments, yet their ability to proactively address safety hazards remains insufficient. We introduce SafetyALFRED, built upon the embodied agent benchmark ALFRED, augmented with six categories of real-world kitchen hazards. While existing safety evaluations focus on hazard recognition through disembodied question answering (QA) settings, we evaluate eleven state-of-the-art models from the Qwen, Gemma, and Gemini families on not only hazard recognition, but also active risk mitigation through embodied planning. Our experimental results reveal a significant alignment gap: while models can accurately recognize hazards in QA settings, average mitigation success rates for these hazards are low in comparison. Our findings demonstrate that static evaluations through QA are insufficient for physical safety, thus we advocate for a paradigm shift toward benchmarks that prioritize corrective actions in embodied contexts. We open-source our code and dataset under https://github.com/sled-group/SafetyALFRED.git

Existing AI agent safety benchmarks focus on generic criminal harm (cybercrime, harassment, weapon synthesis), leaving a systematic blind spot for a distinct and commercially consequential threat category: agents harming their own deployers. Real-world incidents illustrate the gap: Slack AI credential exfiltration (Aug 2024), Microsoft 365 Copilot calendar-injection leaks (Jan 2024), and a Meta agent unauthorized forum post exposing operational data (Mar 2026). We propose Owner-Harm, a formal threat model with eight categories of agent behavior damaging the deployer. We quantify the defense gap on two benchmarks: a compositional safety system achieves 100% TPR / 0% FPR on AgentHarm (generic criminal harm) yet only 14.8% (4/27; 95% CI: 5.9%-32.5%) on AgentDojo injection tasks (prompt-injection-mediated owner harm). A controlled generic-LLM baseline shows the gap is not inherent to owner-harm (62.7% vs. 59.3%, delta 3.4 pp) but arises from environment-bound symbolic rules that fail to generalize across tool vocabularies. On a post-hoc 300-scenario owner-harm benchmark, the gate alone achieves 75.3% TPR / 3.3% FPR; adding a deterministic post-audit verifier raises overall TPR to 85.3% (+10.0 pp) and Hijacking detection from 43.3% to 93.3%, demonstrating strong layer complementarity. We introduce the Symbolic-Semantic Defense Generalization (SSDG) framework relating information coverage to detection rate. Two SSDG experiments partially validate it: context deprivation amplifies the detection gap 3.4x (R = 3.60 vs. R = 1.06); context injection reveals structured goal-action alignment, not text concatenation, is required for effective owner-harm detection.

Frontier language models are being deployed into clinical workflows faster than the infrastructure to evaluate them safely. Static medical-QA benchmarks miss the failure modes that matter in emergency medicine: trajectory-level safety collapse, tool misuse, and capitulation under sustained clinical pressure. We present HealthCraft, the first public reinforcement-learning environment that rewards trajectory-level safety under realistic emergency-medicine conditions, adapted from Corecraft. It is built on a FHIR R4 world state with 14 entity types and 3,987 seed entities, exposes 24 MCP tools, and defines a dual-layer rubric that zeroes reward whenever any safety-critical criterion is violated. We release 195 tasks across six categories, graded against 2,255 binary criteria (515 safety-critical); a post-hoc 10-task negative-class slate extends this to 205 tasks and 2,337 criteria. V8 results on two frontier models show Claude Opus 4.6 at Pass@1 24.8% [21.5-28.4] and GPT-5.4 at 12.6% [10.2-15.6], with safety-failure rates of 27.5% and 34.0%. On multi-step workflows - the closest proxy to real emergency care - performance collapses to near zero (Claude 1.0%, GPT-5.4 0.0%) despite partial competence on individual steps. Six infrastructure bugs fixed between pilots v2 and v8 re-ordered which model "looks stronger," evidence that infrastructure fidelity is part of the measurement. A deterministic LLM-judge overlay bounds evaluator noise, and a 60-run negative-class smoke pilot shows the reward signal is not drop-in training-safe: restraint criteria pass at 0.929 prevalence, a gameability an eval harness can tolerate but a training reward cannot. We scaffold coupling to a Megatron+SGLang+GRPO loop per Corecraft Section 5.2 and leave training-reward ablations as future work. Environment, tasks, rubrics, and harness are released under Apache 2.0.

There is increasing interest in integrating AI agents that invoke tools into domain-specific commercial software, where unintended tool calls can cause serious security and safety incidents. This has drawn growing research attention, and many agent security and safety benchmarks have emerged. They implicitly shape how the community approaches security and safety. Yet existing work exhibits a blind spot: it emphasizes training-based methods and neural guardrails, which reduce the likelihood of insecure or unsafe actions but cannot guarantee their prevention. It generally overlooks opportunities for deductive, symbolic guardrails grounded in standard software engineering practices, which can provide guarantees for some security and safety requirements. Our study has three parts: (1) a systematic review of 80 agent security and safety benchmarks finding that that 85% of benchmarks do not state verifiable requirements (61% provide none, and 24% give only high-level goals); (2) an applicability analysis of which security and safety requirements symbolic guardrails can and cannot enforce on $τ^2$-Bench, CAR-bench, and MedAgentBench, finding that 74% of requirements are symbolically enforceable and 95% of these need only simple, low-cost checks; and (3) an empirical evaluation of symbolic guardrails on the same three benchmarks, finding that symbolic guardrails improve security and safety without sacrificing utility, and often improve it. Our work draws attention to the potential for symbolic guardrails for AI agents, suggesting them as an overlooked but practical path toward deploying domain-specific AI agents in risk-averse commercial software. We release all codes and artifacts at https://github.com/hyn0027/agent-symbolic-guardrails.

Large language models (LLMs) have evolved into autonomous agents that rely on open skill ecosystems (e.g., ClawHub and Skills.Rest), hosting numerous publicly reusable skills. Existing security research on these ecosystems mainly focuses on vulnerabilities within skills, such as prompt injection. However, there is a critical gap regarding skills that may be misused for harmful actions (e.g., cyber attacks, fraud and scams, privacy violations, and sexual content generation), namely harmful skills. In this paper, we present the first large-scale measurement study of harmful skills in agent ecosystems, covering 98,440 skills across two major registries. Using an LLM-driven scoring system grounded in our harmful skill taxonomy, we find that 4.93% of skills (4,858) are harmful, with ClawHub exhibiting an 8.84% harmful rate compared to 3.49% on Skills.Rest. We then construct HarmfulSkillBench, the first benchmark for evaluating agent safety against harmful skills in realistic agent contexts, comprising 200 harmful skills across 20 categories and four evaluation conditions. By evaluating six LLMs on HarmfulSkillBench, we find that presenting a harmful task through a pre-installed skill substantially lowers refusal rates across all models, with the average harm score rising from 0.27 without the skill to 0.47 with it, and further to 0.76 when the harmful intent is implicit rather than stated as an explicit user request. We responsibly disclose our findings to the affected registries and release our benchmark to support future research (see https://github.com/TrustAIRLab/HarmfulSkillBench).

As agent systems move into increasingly diverse execution settings, trajectory-level safety evaluation and diagnosis require benchmarks that evolve with them. ATBench is a diverse and realistic agent trajectory benchmark for safety evaluation and diagnosis. This report presents ATBench-Claw and ATBench-Codex, two domain-customized extensions that carry ATBench into the OpenClaw and OpenAI Codex / Codex-runtime settings. The key adaptation mechanism is to analyze each new setting, customize the three-dimensional Safety Taxonomy over risk source, failure mode, and real-world harm, and then use that customized taxonomy to define the benchmark specification consumed by the shared ATBench construction pipeline. This extensibility matters because agent frameworks remain relatively stable at the architectural level even as their concrete execution settings, tool ecosystems, and product capabilities evolve quickly. Concretely, ATBench-Claw targets OpenClaw-sensitive execution chains over tools, skills, sessions, and external actions, while ATBench-Codex targets trajectories in the OpenAI Codex / Codex-runtime setting over repositories, shells, patches, dependencies, approvals, and runtime policy boundaries. Our emphasis therefore falls on taxonomy customization, domain-specific risk coverage, and benchmark design under a shared ATBench generation framework.

Existing agent-safety evaluation has focused mainly on externally induced risks. Yet agents may still enter unsafe trajectories under benign conditions. We study this complementary but underexplored setting through the lens of \emph{intrinsic} risk, where intrinsic failures remain latent, propagate across long-horizon execution, and eventually lead to high-consequence outcomes. To evaluate this setting, we introduce \emph{non-attack intrinsic risk auditing}, a guard-oriented safety evaluation task, and present \textbf{HINTBench}, a benchmark of 596 agent trajectories, comprising 400 synthetic risky trajectories, 136 synthetic safe trajectories, 30 reconstructed real-world risky trajectories, and 30 reconstructed real-world safe trajectories, with an average length of 24.0 steps. HINTBench supports three tasks: risk detection, risk-step localization, and intrinsic failure-type identification, with annotations organized under a unified five-constraint taxonomy. Experiments reveal a substantial capability gap: strong LLMs perform well on trajectory-level risk detection, but the best model remains below 37 on fine-grained Strict-F1 for risk-step localization. Existing off-the-shelf guard models evaluated under their native prompts transfer poorly to this setting. These findings establish intrinsic risk auditing as an open challenge for agent safety.

Computer-use agents extend language models from text generation to persistent action over tools, files, and execution environments. Unlike chat systems, they maintain state across interactions and translate intermediate outputs into concrete actions. This creates a distinct safety challenge in that harmful behavior may emerge through sequences of individually plausible steps, including intermediate actions that appear locally acceptable but collectively lead to unauthorized actions. We present \textbf{AgentHazard}, a benchmark for evaluating harmful behavior in computer-use agents. AgentHazard contains \textbf{2,653} instances spanning diverse risk categories and attack strategies. Each instance pairs a harmful objective with a sequence of operational steps that are locally legitimate but jointly induce unsafe behavior. The benchmark evaluates whether agents can recognize and interrupt harm arising from accumulated context, repeated tool use, intermediate actions, and dependencies across steps. We evaluate AgentHazard on Claude Code, OpenClaw, and IFlow using mostly open or openly deployable models from the Qwen3, Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek families. Our experimental results indicate that current systems remain highly vulnerable. In particular, when powered by Qwen3-Coder, Claude Code exhibits an attack success rate of \textbf{73.63%}, suggesting that model alignment alone does not reliably guarantee the safety of autonomous agents.

Safety benchmarks usually test "bare" models that receive prompts and output responses, but real-world deployments "wrap" those models in complex scaffolds. How much do these scaffolds affect model safety as measured by benchmarks? We test six leading models on four pre-registered safety benchmarks with a direct API and three scaffolds: ReAct, multi-agent, and map-reduce. We conducted 60,112 scored evaluations. On average, how safety is measured matters more than scaffolding does: we find that using a multiple choice vs. open-ended format for otherwise-identical benchmark items changes measured safety by about 5-20 percentage points (pp). The two formats are scored with different methods (answer extraction and an LLM judge), so the gap is due to measurement rather than differences in latent safety. Using a heuristic to classify model refusals would have led to different findings in four of five cases. Benchmark choice explains 15.1% of the variation in outcomes; scaffold architecture explains 0.5%, about 33x less. We find that map-reduce scaffolds, a form of structure-destroying delegation that strips answer options by decomposing prompts, reduce pooled measured safety by 7.3 pp (95% CI: 6.4 to 8.1). The pooled effects for ReAct and multi-agent scaffolds are within our pre-registered +/-2 pp margin of equivalence. However, there are large differences across models for specific benchmarks and scaffolds that are hidden by pooled estimates: for example, on the same sycophancy benchmark items, Opus 4.6 has 16.8 pp lower measured safety with a map-reduce scaffold, while Llama 4 has 18.8 pp higher measured safety. Composite reliability is G = 0.251 (95% CI: [0.000, 0.879]). This wide confidence interval, which spans "of little use" to "very good", does not support using a single composite measure of model safety as the basis for go/no-go decisions about model deployment.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as autonomous agents, using tools to execute code, read and write files, and access networks, creating novel security risks. To mitigate these risks, agents are commonly deployed and evaluated in isolated "sandbox" environments, often implemented using Docker/OCI containers. We introduce SANDBOXESCAPEBENCH, an open benchmark that safely measures an LLM's capacity to break out of these sandboxes. The benchmark is implemented as an Inspect AI Capture the Flag (CTF) evaluation utilising a nested sandbox architecture with the outer layer containing the flag and no known vulnerabilities. Following a threat model of a motivated adversarial agent with shell access inside a container, SANDBOXESCAPEBENCH covers a spectrum of sandboxescape mechanisms spanning misconfiguration, privilege allocation mistakes, kernel flaws, and runtime/orchestration weaknesses. We find that, when vulnerabilities are added, LLMs are able to identify and exploit them, showing that use of evaluation like SANDBOXESCAPEBENCH is needed to ensure sandboxing continues to provide the encapsulation needed for highly-capable models.

Safety alignment in Large Language Models is critical for healthcare; however, reliance on binary refusal boundaries often results in over-refusal of benign queries or unsafe compliance with harmful ones. While existing benchmarks measure these extremes, they fail to evaluate Safe Completion: the model's ability to maximise helpfulness on dual-use or borderline queries by providing safe, high-level guidance without crossing into actionable harm. We introduce Health-ORSC-Bench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to systematically measure Over-Refusal and Safe Completion quality in healthcare. Comprising 31,920 benign boundary prompts across seven health categories (e.g., self-harm, medical misinformation), our framework uses an automated pipeline with human validation to test models at varying levels of intent ambiguity. We evaluate 30 state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5 and Claude-4, revealing a significant tension: safety-optimised models frequently refuse up to 80% of "Hard" benign prompts, while domain-specific models often sacrifice safety for utility. Our findings demonstrate that model family and size significantly influence calibration: larger frontier models (e.g., GPT-5, Llama-4) exhibit "safety-pessimism" and higher over-refusal than smaller or MoE-based counterparts (e.g., Qwen-3-Next), highlighting that current LLMs struggle to balance refusal and compliance. Health-ORSC-Bench provides a rigorous standard for calibrating the next generation of medical AI assistants toward nuanced, safe, and helpful completions. Furthermore, our benchmark facilitates reproducible evaluation, encourages safety calibration, and supports development of clinically reliable, context-aware, human-aligned medical AI systems. Our code and data are available at: https://github.com/ZhihaoZhang97/Health-ORSC-Bench. Warning: Some contents may include toxic or undesired contents.

Code-capable large language model (LLM) agents are embedded in software engineering workflows where they can read, write, and execute code, raising "jailbreak" stakes beyond text-only settings. Prior evaluations emphasize refusal or harmful-text detection, leaving open whether agents compile and run malicious programs. We present JAWS-Bench (Jailbreaks Across WorkSpaces), a benchmark spanning three escalating workspace regimes mirroring attacker capability: empty (JAWS-0), single-file (JAWS-1), and multi-file (JAWS-M). We pair it with a hierarchical, executable-aware Judge Framework that tests (i) compliance, (ii) attack success, (iii) syntactic correctness, and (iv) runtime executability to measure deployable harm. Across seven LLM backends from five families, prompt-only attacks in JAWS-0 achieve 61% compliance; 58% are harmful, 52% parse, and 27% run end-to-end. In JAWS-1, compliance reaches ~100% for stronger models with a mean ASR (Attack Success Rate) ~71%; JAWS-M raises mean ASR to ~75%, with 32% runnable attack code. Wrapping an LLM in an agent increases ASR by 1.6$\times$, by overturning initial refusals during planning and tool use. Additional evaluations with SWE-Agent and OpenAI Codex exhibit similar trends, indicating that JAWS-Bench can be reused across multiple agent frameworks. Category analyses identify which attack classes are most vulnerable and deployable, motivating execution-aware defenses and refusal-preserving agent designs.

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has intensified the requirement for reliable safety evaluation to uncover model vulnerabilities. To this end, numerous LLM safety evaluation benchmarks are proposed. However, existing benchmarks generally rely on labor-intensive manual curation, which causes excessive time and resource consumption. They also exhibit significant redundancy and limited difficulty. To alleviate these problems, we introduce SafetyFlow, the first agent-flow system designed to automate the construction of LLM safety benchmarks. SafetyFlow can automatically build a comprehensive safety benchmark in only four days without any human intervention by orchestrating seven specialized agents, significantly reducing time and resource cost. Equipped with versatile tools, the agents of SafetyFlow ensure process and cost controllability while integrating human expertise into the automatic pipeline. The final constructed dataset, SafetyFlowBench, contains 23,446 queries with low redundancy and strong discriminative power. Our contribution includes the first fully automated benchmarking pipeline and a comprehensive safety benchmark. We evaluate the safety of 49 advanced LLMs on our dataset and conduct extensive experiments to validate our efficacy and efficiency.

Computer-using agents (CUAs), which can autonomously control computers to perform multi-step actions, might pose significant safety risks if misused. However, existing benchmarks mainly evaluate LMs in chatbots or simple tool use. To more comprehensively evaluate CUAs' misuse risks, we introduce a new benchmark: CUAHarm. CUAHarm consists of 104 expert-written realistic misuse risks, such as disabling firewalls, leaking data, or installing backdoors. We provide a sandbox with rule-based verifiable rewards to measure CUAs' success rates in executing these tasks (e.g., whether the firewall is indeed disabled), beyond refusal rates. We evaluate frontier LMs including GPT-5, Claude 4 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Llama-3.3-70B, and Mistral Large 2. Even without jailbreaking prompts, these frontier LMs comply with executing these malicious tasks at a high success rate (e.g., 90% for Gemini 2.5 Pro). Furthermore, while newer models are safer in previous safety benchmarks, their misuse risks as CUAs become even higher, e.g., Gemini 2.5 Pro is riskier than Gemini 1.5 Pro. Additionally, while these LMs are robust to common malicious prompts (e.g., creating a bomb) when acting as chatbots, they could still act unsafely as CUAs. We further evaluate a leading agentic framework (UI-TARS-1.5) and find that while it improves performance, it also amplifies misuse risks. To mitigate the misuse risks of CUAs, we explore using LMs to monitor CUAs' actions. We find monitoring unsafe computer-using actions is significantly harder than monitoring conventional unsafe chatbot responses. While monitoring chain-of-thoughts leads to modest gains, the average monitoring accuracy is only 77%. A hierarchical summarization strategy improves performance by up to 13%, a promising direction though monitoring remains unreliable. CUAHarm is released at https://github.com/db-ol/CUAHarm to facilitate further research.