AI Agent Security Benchmarks

The rapid evolution of GUI-enabled agents has rendered traditional CAPTCHAs obsolete. While previous benchmarks like OpenCaptchaWorld established a baseline for evaluating multimodal agents, recent advancements in reasoning-heavy models, such as Gemini3-Pro-High and GPT-5.2-Xhigh have effectively collapsed this security barrier, achieving pass rates as high as 90% on complex logic puzzles like "Bingo". In response, we introduce Next-Gen CAPTCHAs, a scalable defense framework designed to secure the next-generation web against the advanced agents. Unlike static datasets, our benchmark is built upon a robust data generation pipeline, allowing for large-scale and easily scalable evaluations, notably, for backend-supported types, our system is capable of generating effectively unbounded CAPTCHA instances. We exploit the persistent human-agent "Cognitive Gap" in interactive perception, memory, decision-making, and action. By engineering dynamic tasks that require adaptive intuition rather than granular planning, we re-establish a robust distinction between biological users and artificial agents, offering a scalable and diverse defense mechanism for the agentic era.

Agent safety benchmarks measure whether a monitor detects harm, not when. Yet timing is the difference between intervention and autopsy. We introduce StepShield, the first benchmark that treats detection timeliness as a first-class metric. On 9,429 incident-grounded code-agent trajectories, we define the Early Intervention Rate (EIR): the fraction of detected rogue trajectories where the alert fires within a k-step window after the divergence point, isolating timing quality from coverage. This metric exposes what we call the Forensics Trap: a pattern-based guardrail with 847 rules achieves 86% recall yet is statistically indistinguishable from random timing on EIR (0.23 vs. 0.24; p = 0.66, one-sided binomial; difference within CI), because over three-quarters of its alerts trigger on benign prefix code before any violation occurs. The 4x EIR gap between rule-based and semantic detectors is completely invisible to accuracy, recall, or F1. Our finding is structural: regex guardrails detect syntax, not intent, and therefore cannot distinguish the moment an agent turns rogue, rendering the entire deployed class of pattern-based monitors unsuited for real-time oversight. No existing method simultaneously achieves high recall, low false-positive rate, and timely intervention, establishing step-level rogue detection as genuinely unsolved.

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

Language agents are moving from single-user assistants to shared collaborators in workspaces, forums, and group chats. A shared agent observes interleaved messages from multiple users, maintains persistent context, and executes tool actions, creating a boundary problem absent from standard single-user agents: the agent must decide not only whether an instruction is safe, but which user or task it is allowed to govern. We identify cross-user poisoning (CUP), where an adversary injects a message into shared context that is later applied while the agent serves a benign user, causing unauthorized actions or responses outside the instruction's intended scope. We validate CUP on two deployed multi-user agents, Continua and ElizaOS, and introduce MURMUR, a framework for evaluating shared-context agents under concurrent multi-user interactions. Across Slack, Workspace, and Airline domains, CUP achieves high attack success, persists across later interactions, and remains substantially more effective than matched prompt-injection attacks. We evaluate boundary-scoping defenses and find that context summarization alone is insufficient, while task clustering and provenance prompting substantially reduce non-adaptive propagation. These results show that robust multi-user agents require explicit user/task scoping rather than generic input filtering or context compression.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are powering a growing share of interactive web applications, yet remain vulnerable to misuse and harm. Prior jailbreak research has largely focused on single-turn prompts, whereas real harassment often unfolds over multi-turn interactions. In this work, we present the Online Harassment Agentic Benchmark consisting of: (i) a synthetic multi-turn harassment conversation dataset, (ii) a multi-agent (e.g., harasser, victim) simulation informed by repeated game theory, (iii) three jailbreak methods attacking agents across memory, planning, and fine-tuning, and (iv) a mixed-methods evaluation framework. We utilize two prominent LLMs, LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct (open-source) and Gemini-2.0-flash (closed-source). Our results show that jailbreak tuning makes harassment nearly guaranteed with an attack success rate of 95.78--96.89% vs. 57.25--64.19% without tuning in Llama, and 99.33% vs. 98.46% without tuning in Gemini, while sharply reducing refusal rate to 1-2% in both models. The most prevalent toxic behaviors are Insult with 84.9--87.8% vs. 44.2--50.8% without tuning, and Flaming with 81.2--85.1% vs. 31.5--38.8% without tuning, indicating weaker guardrails compared to sensitive categories such as sexual or racial harassment. Qualitative evaluation further reveals that attacked agents reproduce human-like aggression profiles, such as Machiavellian/psychopathic patterns under planning, and narcissistic tendencies with memory. Counterintuitively, closed-source and open-source models exhibit distinct escalation trajectories across turns, with closed-source models showing significant vulnerability. Overall, our findings show that multi-turn and theory-grounded attacks not only succeed at high rates but also mimic human-like harassment dynamics, motivating the development of robust safety guardrails to ultimately keep online platforms safe and responsible.

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.

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.

Prompt injection attacks, where untrusted data contains an injected prompt to manipulate the system, have been listed as the top security threat to AI agents. By fine-tuning on simulated prompt injections, SecAlign, a leading open defense, reports LLMs with good test-time robustness and negligible benign utility drop. By scaling up training and evaluations, however, we find that SecAlign actually suffers from significant utility degradation, especially in agentic tasks where the threat of prompt injection is prominent. Motivated by this, we propose Meta-SecAlign for utility-preserving defense by (1) randomized injection position during training to avoid shortcut learning and (2) self-generated responses as high-quality in-distribution training labels. Across general knowledge, instruction following, and agentic workflows (on tool-calling and web-navigation), Meta-SecAlign maintains almost all the undefended LLM's utility while achieving better overall security than SecAlign against various static and GCG adaptive attacks. Experiments use Llama-3.1-8B, Llama-3.3-70B, Llama-4-Scout, Qwen3-4B, and Qwen3.6-27B on 6 prompt injection benchmarks including AgentDojo, InjecAgent, WASP, and SEP. Below are links for the code (https://github.com/facebookresearch/Meta_SecAlign), Meta-SecAlign-70B (https://huggingface.co/facebook/Meta-SecAlign-70B), and Meta-SecAlign-8B (https://huggingface.co/facebook/Meta-SecAlign-8B) models.

Indirect prompt injection attacks exploit a fundamental weakness of LLMs: executing unauthorized tasks from untrusted sources. Despite the practical significance of this attack vector, existing benchmarks rely on small sets of template-based attacks (100-1,000 examples) that fail to capture the diversity and adaptiveness of real-world adversaries. Consequently, benchmarks are saturated and overfit to static attacks. We introduce LLMail-Inject, a large-scale benchmark of 208,095 distinct human-written attack prompts collected through a public red-teaming challenge with 839 participants. LLMail-Inject evaluates the attack's complete chain of execution: prompts must be retrieved from an email database, evade production-level defenses, and trigger unauthorized tool calls with correct arguments. Evaluation reveals that models that achieve 5% attack success rate (ASR) on existing benchmarks fail more on LLMail-Inject: Meta SecAlign--specifically trained against prompt injection--still yields 32% ASR, GPT-4o exhibits 58% ASR, and GPT-5 mini 47% ASR. We further demonstrate that attacks transfer across domains, achieving 37% ASR on proof-of-concept coding tasks and 28-45% ASR on file management tasks. We release our challenge platform and curated evaluation subsets at multiple difficulty tiers and the full dataset with rich annotations.