AI Agent Security Benchmarks

Safe agents can fail together. Multi-agent LLM systems (MAS) move information, state, decisions, and authority across principal boundaries, creating failures that local checks may miss. Without an execution-level view, a multi-agent setting can easily be mistaken for evidence of a genuinely multi-agent security effect. We thus systematize MAS security through an execution-centered analysis of 197 works, covering six interaction interfaces, four adversary positions, seven system-level risks, and eight recurring attack paths. We introduce an A-I-R framework that organizes attacks by adversary position, interaction interface, and resulting system-level risk, unifying otherwise fragmented attack mechanisms across MAS. We organize defenses through a five-part contract covering path target, observation, intervention, trust boundary, and recovery, and identify path closure and recovery as key challenges. We audit 44 evaluation and benchmark works and identify open challenges in isolating interaction effects, designing comparable and diagnostic metrics, supporting reuse across MAS designs, and evaluating open-system operation. Together, these findings motivate an interaction-aware view of MAS security: trace attacks end to end, test whether defenses close those paths, and evaluate system-level effects with appropriate counterfactuals.

Coding agents are increasingly used for software engineering tasks, including bootstrapping projects from third-party repositories whose integrity cannot be assumed. Prior work on repository poisoning largely focuses on attacker-controlled injection and disguise, but developers also shape risk through everyday invocation choices: what task to delegate, how to phrase the request, and which skills or rules to supply. We term these user-side choices Prompt-Level Configurations (PLCs) and introduce CIPR (Coding In Poisoned Repos), the first benchmark that systematically varies PLCs in poisoned real-world repositories. CIPR comprises 1,920 instances across 20 repositories, four task types, three social-media-grounded prompt styles, and three skill/rule conditions, and measures attack success rate (ASR) and agent alert rate (AR) using automated runtime and trace-based oracles. Our evaluation reveals two key insights: (1) Vulnerability is highly context-dependent, with task type creating up to a 4.5-fold difference in ASR, with test-execution task forming a silent attack surface (high ASR, low AR). (2) Prompt expression shifts risk indirectly: underspecified prompts reduce ASR by truncating execution depth; noisy prompts exhibit a directional trend toward suppressing alerts by making malicious content less conspicuous. These findings highlight that coding agent vulnerability is not a static property, but a dynamic outcome shaped by everyday user configurations.

LLM-based agent systems increasingly adopt skill-based architectures to reduce repetitive reasoning costs and improve stable, efficient task execution. Recent studies propose self-evolving agents that autonomously generate, refine, and reuse skills from past experiences to enable continuous capability evolution. However, autonomous skill evolution introduces a new attack surface in which malicious capabilities are generated, stored, and reused as legitimate skills. In this paper, we define EvoSkill Injection as a threat model targeting the autonomous skill generation and evolution pipeline of self-evolving agents. We further propose SARGE (Red-teaming Autonomous Skill Generation and Evolution in self-evolving agents), a red-teaming framework for evaluating this threat model through iterative generation, escalation, and reinforcement interactions. To support our framework, we construct EvoSkillBench, a benchmark dataset of malicious interaction trajectories for inducing malicious skill formation in self-evolving agents, and introduce EvoSkillSafetyBench, a post-attack benchmark for evaluating whether injected malicious skills are subsequently retrieved and activated as harmful behaviors. Our evaluation shows that SARGE induces malicious skill formation and that injected skills are persistently stored and repeatedly activated, highlighting the risk of persistent capability corruption.

As LLM agents take real-world actions through tools, indirect prompt injection (IPI) has emerged as a serious threat. The standard metric, Attack Success Rate (ASR), counts whether an injection succeeds but ignores what the user notices in the agent's final response. Looking at successful injection traces, we find two distinct outcomes: the agent executes the injection while returning an otherwise normal response, or reports the injected action in its final response, giving the user a chance to notice. We call these covert and overt successes. From the user's perspective, we decompose ASR into the Covert Success Rate (CSR), counting successes leaving no trace in the final response, and the Overt Success Rate (OSR), counting successes the user can detect. To understand what drives the gap, we analyze successful trajectories and find that the agent's behavior after the injection separates covert from overt: covert traces hand control back to the user task before ending, while overt traces end at the attack itself. This split follows from the ReAct format, where the final response summarizes the most recent action. Building on this observation, we propose ICoA (Induced Covert Attack), an IPI attack designed to induce covert outcomes by steering the agent back to the user task after executing the injection. Across four target models on AgentDojo, ICoA achieves the highest CSR, with gains of 3.79-12.01 percentage points over the strongest baseline.

Large language model (LLM)-driven embodied agents rely on environment states to interpret scenes, generate high-level plans, and drive physical execution, making planner-visible state representations a critical security boundary. Existing attacks primarily manipulate user instructions, prompt contexts, model behavior, or perceptual inputs, while paying limited attention to whether environment-state text itself can serve as deceptive task evidence and propagate beyond planning to affect execution outcomes. Because embodied tasks are constrained by entity grounding, action preconditions, spatial relations, and environmental constraints, planning deviation alone does not guarantee adversarial execution. To address this gap, we investigate environment-state text as an independent attack surface and present the first closed-loop Environment State-Text Injection (ESTI) attack for LLM-driven embodied agents. Without modifying the original user instruction, model parameters, or executor, ESTI reformulates an adversarial objective as false state evidence compatible with the current environment and influences planning and execution through object properties, spatial relations, affordances, task-stage rules, and execution feedback. We further develop ESTI-Bench to evaluate attack propagation across the planning-to-execution closed loop and compare ESTI with Vanilla IPI, EIRAD, and BADROBOT across ProgPrompt/VirtualHome, VoxPoser/RLBench, and AI2-THOR/iTHOR. ESTI consistently outperforms existing baselines, improving planning-level and execution-level attack success rates by up to 89.32% and 43.69%, respectively. Further analysis shows that grounding, consistency, and executability jointly determine whether manipulated state evidence can propagate through the embodied closed loop and produce verifiable environmental changes.

Security evaluations of tool-using agents often equate stored labels with behavioral facts. We audit a preserved campaign by tracing 10,200 execution rows to 180 model-bound requests, 45 semantic requests, and 15 observable stimuli. Two schema treatments were delivered, but the planned external payload-family corpus was not. The historical grader exhibited direct treatment leakage: treatment metadata gated the ATTACK_SUCCESS class, so fixed behavior could change class under treatment relabeling. A treatment-blind reconstruction corrects 58 historical ATTACK_SUCCESS or HIJACK_ATTEMPT labels to authorized benign completions while preserving three verified protected-data transfers and one separate unauthorized-forwarding case. The locked v2 census contains exactly zero ATTACK_SUCCESS records, while the forwarding case remains a HIJACK_ATTEMPT at a semantic boundary concerning objective completion. A dual-reviewer blinded concordance review of all 96 requests deemed structurally interpretable by locked v2 produced identical reviewer-consensus classes but differed from the locked codebook on four construct-boundary cases. We contribute a seven-link Integrity Chain and an executable, scope-bounded endpoint-integrity linter. The result is a campaign-bounded measurement audit, not a population attack-rate, model-ranking, defense-efficacy, or causal estimate.

Large language model (LLM) agents integrated with external tools are vulnerable to indirect prompt injections embedded in environmental states. However, existing studies largely rely on manually implemented or reused environments, stochastic LLM-based tool simulation, and predefined injection locations, limiting scalable security research across broader domains. To bridge this gap, we propose ToolHazard, a scalable adversarial environment synthesis framework that reduces human engineering and supports expansion with additional seed domains and compute. Through an Environment Simulator, an Attacker Agent, and a User Simulator, ToolHazard synthesizes executable stateful environments, discovers viable injection points and generates environment-specific payloads, and constructs state-grounded long-horizon tasks. Based on ToolHazard, we build ToolHazard-Bench for stress-testing agents under complex workflows and diverse environmental attacks. Experiments reveal substantial agent vulnerabilities and show that injection timing and placement affect attack effectiveness. Moreover, ToolHazard-generated alignment data improves security on both ToolHazard-Bench and AgentDojo while preserving benign task utility.

AI agents are rapidly improving in cybersecurity when source code is available, yet much of the software most consequential to security, including malware, firmware, and proprietary applications, exists only as binaries. Analyzing such software requires reverse engineering (RE): recovering program semantics before analysis can proceed. Evaluating agentic RE poses a fundamental challenge: realistic benchmark instances must (1) be absent from LLMs' training data to prevent shortcuts by memorization, and (2) reflect the scale and anti-analysis protections of real-world binaries. We introduce SRE-Bench, the first realistic, contamination-free RE benchmark. Built from scratch by RE experts with over 5,000 expert hours, SRE-Bench comprises 19 private, real-world-scale programs averaging 16.9K lines of code. We further developed 44 in-house anti-analysis mechanisms, yielding 262 binary instances and 1,572 deterministically graded tasks. We evaluated 13 agentic settings across 11 models: eight in public-facing settings and five in internal unconstrained settings with cyber safeguards disabled and no budget cap. Realistic RE remains challenging for frontier agents: GPT-5.6-Sol and Claude-Fable-5.1, despite strong source-code security capabilities, fully solve only 31.5% and 26.9% of graded instances, suggesting that success in source-code security does not translate into effective binary analysis. Without a budget cap and safety guard, GPT-6-Astra achieves a near-perfect pass@4 score, yet reliably identifying the correct candidate remains difficult. Agents are largely insensitive to compiler optimization and static linking, and ablations confirm that both contamination control and realistic scale are essential to understanding agents' RE capability. These findings highlight RE as a distinct frontier for agentic cybersecurity and establish SRE-Bench as a rigorous testbed for measuring progress.

Tool-using large language model (LLM) agents are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI), in which malicious instructions embedded in external observations manipulate subsequent agent decisions and actions. Most existing adaptive attacks rely on repeatedly querying and refining against the target agent, whereas realistic attackers may have only a single opportunity to interact with an unknown target agent. We propose SAVOR (Strategy Abstraction Via Outcome-Conditioned Reflection), which shifts attack adaptation from test-time iteration to offline strategy distillation. SAVOR performs outcome-conditioned reflection over successful and failed trajectories collected from disjoint training environments, validates context-conditioned candidate strategies, and iteratively consolidates them into a reusable strategy memory. At test time, the frozen memory guides the generation of a single payload for each unseen target, requiring only one target-agent query and no target-agent feedback. Across two benchmarks and three victim models, SAVOR attains the highest average attack success rate in all six settings, leading the strongest prior attack by 2.5 to 11.8 points and the same injection channel without strategy learning by 23.1 points on Agent Security Bench, which holds out attacker tools, and 28.6 points on OpenClaw-IPI, an executable benchmark we introduce that holds out attack goals and verifies attacks through tool interactions and execution receipts. A memory learned under one defense also transfers to another.

Agent Skills---structured packages of instructions and scripts that augment LLM-based agents---are rapidly proliferating, yet their security properties remain under-explored. We present \textsc{SkillsMetric}, a five-stage static analysis framework that scores skill packages along pattern density, statistical anomaly, dataflow taint, import anomaly, and capability mismatch dimensions. We construct an adversarial evaluation dataset of 2{,}266 skills spanning 16~attack types across code-level, system-level, and semantic-level threats, and evaluate on the full SkillMD-138K corpus. Our framework achieves an AUC of 0.93 and 5-fold cross-validated F1 of 73.4%$\pm$0.5%, with strong detection of data exfiltration (93%) and steganographic payloads (93%). Crucially, we identify fundamental blind spots: \emph{host destruction} attacks using common shell commands evade all five stages (0% detection), and \emph{prompt injection} via natural-language manipulation achieves only 42% detection. These findings establish that static analysis alone is insufficient for skill security, motivating defense-in-depth architectures that combine fast static pre-screening with semantic review.

Large language model agents are becoming operational interfaces to files, memories, registries, and external tools. This deployment shift creates a new skill revocation problem: after a skill is removed from an explicit registry, an agent may still reconstruct it from residual carriers such as archives, transcripts, schemas, or memory entries. We study this problem as operational skill unlearning, where the goal is not parameter-level forgetting, but preventing a deployed agent from rebuilding a revoked skill through primitive tools. We introduce OBLIVION, a controlled benchmark and defense harness for revoked-skill resurrection. OBLIVION models each episode as a source-to-sink workflow, applies Cross-Surface Coherent Erasure to reduce residual carriers, and uses frozen workflow remediation near dangerous sinks. On the locked 88 attack episodes, the no-defense arm reaches formal attack success rate 1.0. OBLIVION reduces the rate to 0.114 and impact-weighted exposure to 0.115 while keeping locked utility at 1.0 and benign block rate at 0. In a separate skill-attack-derived sandbox, OBLIVION reduces attack success from 1.0 to 0.2 and impact-weighted exposure from 1.0 to 0.213 while preserving all utility controls. These results support workflow-level evaluation beyond checking explicit skill entries.

LLM-based search agents are widely used for information-seeking tasks, but their reliance on external tool returns introduces a critical security risk: web content retrieved during execution is untrusted, exposing agents to prompt injection and goal hijacking. Prior work on search-agent safety primarily focuses on static web-content injection, but modern agents issue follow-up queries and cross-check competing sources, so a single injected page is often diluted or rejected. We show that the channel delivering search and page observations is a fragile security boundary: beyond exposing the agent to a single poisoned page, a mediated search interface can repeatedly steer how the agent gathers evidence and forms its final answer. Under a constrained tool-intermediary threat model, appending only one controlled result per query can substantially increase attack success when the evidence is coordinated across the agent's trajectory. We study this setting with a strategy-driven long-horizon attack system and introduce Authority-Chain Hijack (ACH), an expert-refined strategy that turns isolated search-result and page-content manipulations into a coherent evidence chain across seemingly corroborating sources. ACH achieves the highest Overall ASR among all baselines, reaching 55.9% / 83.3% ASR / MaxN ASR on the full SafeSearch test split. We further introduce Trace-Guided Strategy Evolution (TGSE), which automatically improves attacker strategies from execution traces, replacing manual redesign with trace-driven refinement; its strongest single setting reaches 71.4% / 95.0% in held-out evaluation.

Autonomous cyber defense systems based on Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) have attracted significant research attention, yet remain evaluated almost exclusively against static, heuristic red agents, leaving their robustness against adaptive threats critically understudied. Meanwhile, recent advances in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) have improved LLM reasoning, but their integration into cybersecurity remains elusive due to the absence of suitable benchmark environments and interaction datasets. To bridge this gap, we introduce Trident, an agentic LLM red teaming framework comprising three components: a dynamic benchmark with isolated sandbox servers spanning CybORG CAGE 4 and CyberWheel, a dataset comprises over 13,000 high-fidelity red-blue interaction trajectories for RLVR, and a ``Code-as-Policy'' RLVR agentic architecture Trident Agentic). The latter reformulates red agent training as a contextual bandit via a tripartite Log Summarizer--Planner--Coder design, where a trainable Planner generates complete attack strategies from compressed execution logs, which a frozen Coder translates into executable Python policies deployed against live DRL defenders. Empirical evaluations reveal a fundamental brittleness in existing defenses: with a single trainable 7B planner, Trident reduces blue agent defensive performance by an average of 522% compared to static red agent baselines while autonomously discovering emergent behaviors such as decoy avoidance and adaptive state prioritization that static heuristics entirely fail to uncover.

Persona skills distill personal interaction histories into portable and executable artifacts for downstream agents. While enabling flexible personalization, this process concentrates fragmented personal signals, amplifies their impact through reuse, and challenges defenses designed for individual records or retrieval-based memory. To systematically investigate the safety of the persona-skill pipeline, we introduce AntiSkillBench, an end-to-end benchmark for evaluating risks and defenses across the persona-skill pipeline. It comprises: (i) a dataset of 7,500 persona-grounded dialogue traces, constructed from 50 behaviorally rich profiles spanning diverse task scenarios; (ii) an evaluation suite that measures skill-level privacy leakage and agent-level attribute disclosure and behavioral impersonation across three skill-distillation strategies; and (iii) a defense evaluation covering four configurations across online and post-hoc interventions, including active risk suppression and passive provenance protection. Experiments across three frontier agents show that persona-skill risks persist across agent backbones and distillation protocols, extending from explicit attributes to communication styles and personality traits. Existing defenses exhibit limited and distillation-dependent effectiveness, failing to generalize across risk and distillation strategies. These results highlight AntiSkillBench as a challenging benchmark for developing privacy-preserving and authenticity-aware persona skills.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents offer a promising approach to attack chain reconstruction by retrieving and interpreting heterogeneous telemetry to infer ordered attacker actions. However, existing benchmarks mainly evaluate final outputs or aggregate accuracy, providing limited insight into how errors arise and propagate across intermediate reasoning stages. We present DiagChain, a diagnostic benchmark for evidence-grounded attack chain reconstruction that enables stage-wise evaluation of LLM agents. DiagChain includes MAIN-69, a suite of 69 scenarios spanning multiple operating systems, evidence noise levels, and chain lengths. It further introduces Evidence-Centric Retrieval-Augmented Generation (ECRAG), which couples evidence retrieval with an evolving structured representation of the reconstructed chain. Five complementary metrics are introduced to assess distinct stages of the reconstruction process and support systematic failure diagnosis. Based on evaluations using 6 LLMs, DiagChain reveals that even the strongest configuration succeeds on only 39.6% of the 849 reference steps in MAIN-69. Our analysis further shows that smaller models struggle with the more basic task of incorporating retrieved evidence into their outputs, whereas larger models can proceed to later steps, where correctly ordering that evidence becomes the main bottleneck. These results validate the importance of diagnostic evaluation beyond end-to-end accuracy and provide actionable insights for improving evidence-grounded cybersecurity agents.

Recent advances in persistent personal-agent frameworks are making human-centered agent networks realistic deployment targets: each user can be served by an AI agent that acts on the user's behalf, maintains state, and communicates with other agents through social and task relations. In these networks, everyday tool use becomes multi-party owned-agent collaboration over personal workspaces, where files, records, tools, and policies are not directly visible across owners. Existing agent benchmarks study tool use and collaboration, but they do not provide an end-to-end sandbox for verifiable cross-user agent collaboration with realistic user digital workspaces or test how harmful actions can travel through the human-centered agent network. We introduce WeClawArena, an auditable benchmark and runtime sandbox for multi-party owned-agent collaboration over personal workspaces. WeClawArena targets collaborative tool-use tasks in which personal workspaces serve as both operational tools and personal constraints. The benchmark contains 124 base tasks across six cross-user task domains and expands them into 620 scenario variants, with one benign control and four attack-vector variants per base task. The sandbox records peer messages, tool calls, resource operations, governed decisions, and final workspace states. WeClawArena reports utility and attack success rate separately and audits attack success from bounded runtime evidence, supporting diagnosis of task breakdown, privacy leakage, poisoned evidence, and invalid authority paths.

Computer-use agents (CUAs), which empower large language models to autonomously operate operating systems and the web, are increasingly vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks. A widely adopted defense is the human-in-the-loop paradigm, in which the agent pauses for explicit user confirmation before executing sensitive operations. While effective against conspicuously high-harm attacks, this defense offers little protection against what we term Invisible Ink Threats: low-harm injected goals, such as starring a repository or installing a package, that are behaviorally indistinguishable from legitimate task execution and thus evade both model safety mechanisms and human oversight. To systematically investigate this blind spot, we present II-Bench, a collection of seemingly harmless adversarial tasks. II-Bench comprises 444 examples targeting confidentiality and integrity attacks across three platforms, spanning three attack categories: page navigation and interaction, sensitive information exfiltration, and code download and execution. Each category is instantiated in both natural language and code forms under two levels of instruction specificity. Furthermore, we construct HITLCUA, a comprehensive adversarial testing framework that integrates a real virtual machine operating system environment with isolated Docker-based web platforms, and simulates human participation by allowing CUAs to consult an API-simulated user before proceeding with suspicious operations. Extensive evaluations of leading CUAs reveal that low-harm injections frequently bypass both agent defenses and simulated user review, exposing severe and previously underexplored security risks in current CUAs.

Coding agents increasingly run inside organizations whose security controls (scoped credentials, restricted egress, read-only filesystems, non-root execution) constrain them like any other software. Existing benchmarks, however, evaluate agents almost exclusively in permissive sandboxes, so it is unknown how performance changes when policy is enforced. In this work, we evaluate 12 coding agents on Terminal-Bench 2.1 across nested security policy levels derived from common real-world enterprise restrictions. Hardening is never free but far from uniform: under the strictest policy, success losses reach 18.3 points and cost inflation 167.3%, and the two axes disagree; the model that best preserves success is also the one that loses the most efficiency, so model choice is policy-dependent. Beyond aggregate scores, we characterize how agents behave when policy blocks their actions and decompose the failures hardening induces: runs grind into timeouts or wrong solutions rather than stopping early, in a mix that differs by model. To ground comparisons, we verify task solvability under the strictest policy, separating model failures from tasks the policy forecloses. We release Boundary-Bench, an open-source hardening plugin enabling policy-constrained evaluation of coding agents on Terminal-Bench and compatible benchmarks.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly adopted in real-world security operations with access to host artifacts and command-line interfaces (CLIs), making it critical to thoroughly assess their security capabilities. However, existing cybersecurity benchmarks focus on pre-compromise settings where agents are placed in a clean and idealized environment before an attack occurs. This leaves the post-compromise setting underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce SecRespond, the first benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on the post-compromise incident-response workflow. Given a forensic disk snapshot of a compromised host together with the alerts, vulnerability scans, and baseline checks reported by a host security product, agents are required to produce forensic reports on intrusions, baseline risks, and vulnerability risks, together with a remediation plan. We instantiate this task across 10 cyber ranges, each constructed from a distinct compromised cloud host, spanning 4 entry-point types, 21 ATT&CK techniques, and 5 operating systems. We evaluate 23 frontier LLMs on the OpenCode agent harness. Experimental results show that although current agents can reliably uncover the problems exposed by alerts, they struggle to proactively investigate the disk for silent intrusions and to produce comprehensive, verified remediation plans, with no model achieving complete detection and remediation on any single range. This reveals a fundamental bottleneck in building agents for real-world incident response. The benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/Alibaba-NLP/qqr/tree/main/data/secrespond.

Stealth, the discipline of achieving an objective without revealing your presence, capabilities, or collected intelligence, is what separates sophisticated operators from detectable ones. Elite security researchers and advanced persistent threats achieve their objectives unnoticed; autonomous agents increasingly inherit the same offensive tasks, but do they inherit the tradecraft? We introduce StealthBench,a benchmark that measures operational stealth in autonomous offensive-security agents across six operational security (OPSEC) dimensions. We extract 11 hand-verified OPSEC incidents from real bug-bounty and red-team trajectories, expanded into 14 dockerized task scenarios, where agents, despite finding real vulnerabilities, committed stealth failures inconsistent with standard operational tradecraft: embedding credentials in public uploads, deleting production resources to prove access, force-adding uninvolved users to demonstrate a race condition. We evaluate agent trajectories using a 3-model large language model (LLM) judge panel with majority-vote aggregation, measuring safe success rate (solved and stealthy), Stealth@Solve (tradecraft quality among successful solves), and reckless solve rate (solved but cover blown). Our results show that no model exceeds 54% safe success rate (the compound metric requiring both task completion and stealth), confirming that OPSEC failures are systematic across model families. We release StealthBench as a public benchmark to support both the development of stealth-aware agents and automated OPSEC monitoring for autonomous offensive-security deployments. The interactive leaderboard, evaluation harness, and dataset are available at https://stealthbench.com.

In IoT-enabled smart-city settings, Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are evolving from passive sensing platforms into cyber-physical decision makers that must respect operational rules under degraded observations and ambiguous language. Existing UAV and multimodal benchmarks cover aerial perception, navigation, collaboration, and task reasoning, but rarely test whether physical evidence, protocol constraints, and action risk stay coupled at critical decisions. We introduce MulRobBench, an offline, protocol-conditioned benchmark for Vision-Language-Action (VLA) UAV agents that links real UAV multimodal observations, protocol-level security-policy constraints, and action-level cyber-physical safety within an auditable decision contract. The evaluation set contains 3,024 samples spanning 17 task-taxonomy nodes and 12 metric scoring dimensions, organized around context understanding, multimodal evidence arbitration, degradation-aware reasoning, and risk-aware action planning. MulRobBench reports controlled semantic scores alongside strict structural diagnostics for policy compliance, formatting, unsafe actions, parsing, and dimension-level validity. Across 17 uniformly audited models, the best semantic protocol-decision score reaches 0.5141 and the best strict mean scoring-dimension accuracy reaches 0.1599. A matched 20-anchor modality-removal study changes 4-15 action selections per model, showing both visual and textual inputs influence decisions while the strongest input condition varies across metrics. Per-dimension and conditional analyses identify modality-trust selection, constraint extraction, strong glare, missing data, and high-entropy operator shorthand as principal sources of action instability. The central challenge is thus stable coupling of degraded evidence, security-policy constraints, and risk-bearing action, not isolated scene recognition.

Third-party API routers have become a common layer that unifies access across increasingly diverse LLM providers. In coding-agent workflows, high-autonomy operation is widely adopted because it reduces interaction overhead. As a result, a third-party API router, which sits between the agent and the upstream provider, inevitably occupies the trusted path. It can inspect and modify every request and response, yet no mechanism verifies alignment between the provider's output and the repository-level actions ultimately executed by the agent. Consequently, client-side permission mechanisms may become ineffective in practice. Whether this control gap produces real, hard-to-detect effects on software development tasks remains empirically unmeasured. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study of router-side injection in coding agents, examining four intervention levels of increasing subtlety: Response Substitution (L1), Response Append (L2), LLM-Polished Injection (L3), and LLM-Polished with Distribution Alignment Injection (L4). Moreover, we develop SIDEL, a framework for trace recording, replay, injection, and defense evaluation, with a curated dataset of 400 samples. We evaluate four representative coding agents, and further evaluate whitelist-based execution control and LLM review. Router-side intervention substantially alters repository-level actions and remains difficult for existing client-side safeguards to detect. Without additional mitigations, all evaluated agents achieved a defense success rate of 0 percent across all injection levels. Client-side mitigations and reactive reviews improve resistance but do not fully restore end-to-end control, motivating provider-side output-integrity guarantees. Our code is available at https://github.com/Riyasushin/SIDEL.

Large language models now power autonomous agents capable of complex, multi-step tasks in different environments. Accurate and reliable execution of these tasks requires the agent to predict the results of its actions. Recent research proposes to enhance predictive capabilities via specially trained environment simulators-world models. While world models can improve performance, they can also mislead agents into executing harmful actions, creating significant security and privacy risks. In this paper, we raise security concerns regarding the usage of world models in agentic systems. We discover a range of world model specific vulnerabilities, which can be exploited in terminal-based agents to execute malicious code or extract sensitive data. To facilitate future development, we introduce a security benchmark dataset designed for text-based world models. We argue that some risks are intrinsic to approximate world modeling, and show that attackers can induce mispredictions in agentic pipelines with up to 95% success rate, possibly resulting in unintended command execution, denial of service, drainage of wallet and private information extraction. Finally, we provide practical recommendations for practitioners to mitigate the discovered harms and harden agentic systems.

Enterprise AI agents are typically granted static credential sets at configuration time, holding every tool the role might need for every task they perform. This persistent over-privilege expands the attack surface. We argue that capability scoping must follow a dynamic least-privilege principle and be treated as a prevention mechanism before a detection one. A credential that does not exist in an agent's context cannot be misused regardless of the agent's reasoning or evasion sophistication. We outline a three-source architecture instantiating this principle: role-based ceilings, a task-context classifier, and policy-derived combination prohibitions creating a layered proactive defense against LLM agent misalignment and misuse cases. The architecture supports both enforcing and observe-only deployment; the latter records agent permission requests inconsistent with task context, producing a behavioral signal usable in misalignment research. As a first step toward evaluating this architecture, we contribute a synthetic dataset of 600 enterprise task prompts grounded in a multi-department company policy, labeled with minimum required permissions across a 15-permission tool-based taxonomy that maps directly to deployable credentials or enforceable guardrails. The dataset is constructed via a two-pass pipeline that separates prompt generation from permission labeling to avoid circularity, and is validated against a 60-record/688 decisions human-reviewed sample (Cohen's $κ= 0.917$ pre-review and $κ= 0.967$ post-review). Iterating between dataset and policy reduced ceiling violations from 46 to 3, a 93% reduction. This shows that synthetic prompt generation can drive policy refinement when the two are developed together. The dataset, environment specification, and generation pipeline are released to support evaluation of dynamic scoping mechanisms.

Agent security is widely treated as a question about action content. Defenses ask whether an instruction looks malicious. Benchmarks ask whether an agent performs a harmful sounding action. \textbf{We argue that agent security is fundamentally a contextual problem, and that the current content based framing systematically misdefines it.} A command to ``delete user data'' might be a routine administrative request or a prompt injection attacking production systems, and the content alone cannot distinguish the two. Authorization context can. Across every injection task in AgentDojo and WASP, the same action is one an authenticated user would plausibly request in a routine workflow, which makes the conflation a structural property of evaluating security through content. We operationalize contextual security through four properties that must hold jointly and be evaluated continuously across the agent's trajectory. Source Authorization asks who issued the command. Task Alignment specifies the agent's authorized objective. Action Alignment evaluates whether each action serves that objective. Data Isolation governs information flows across privilege boundaries. Under this reframing, indirect prompt injection becomes a Source Authorization violation. Snapshot benchmarks are structurally incapable of evaluating Data Isolation. Existing defenses are reorganized around the property they actually approximate. The contextual reframing changes which defenses are coherent, which evaluations measure something useful, and which attack patterns evaluation can see at all.

We introduce Tencent WorkBuddy Bench, a multi-domain evaluation suite for coding agents; this report documents its construction methodology, scoring protocol, and a cross-model leaderboard. At its core is a unified evaluation framework for constructing and running distribution-informed coding-agent tasks across four work domains - Code, Web, Office, and Security. Rather than adapting public issue text, every task is reverse-engineered from a real commit, pull request, or business scenario and rewritten as a short, colloquial, role-played request, so that a task's prompt is not recoverable by web-searching the underlying issue, pull request, or commit thread. Because the dataset is released openly - task directories, environment images, evaluation harness, tests, and reference solutions - contamination resistance rests on this construction together with dataset versioning rather than on secrecy. The four subsets - repository-level engineering, front-end development, office and business workflows, and red-/blue-team security - probe complementary facets of real work, each with its own verification style. All are packaged in a uniform task-directory format and run, under a uniform and reproducible protocol, on two agent harnesses (CodeBuddy Code and Claude Code); the full open release makes the benchmark reproducible end to end and directly auditable, since any third party can re-run each task and inspect its content. Because each subset uses a different scoring instrument, scores are not comparable across subsets and the suite reports no suite-wide average. We report a cross-model leaderboard across several model families.

AI coding agents powered by LLMs are increasingly integrated into real-world software development, where they generate, edit, and execute code with autonomous access to local files and tools. Coding agents inherit security risks from both the LLM backbone, where adversarial prompts, poisoned training data, and backdoor triggers can cause models to emit insecure or attacker-chosen code, and their agentic architecture, where tool-using autonomy enables induced misuse of external APIs, data exfiltration, and persistent compromise of development environments. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of malicious issue requests against state-of-the-art coding agents (Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex Desktop), powered by two major model families (OpenAI GPT-5.3 Codex/GPT-5.4 and Anthropic Sonnet 4.6). Our novel benchmark IssueTrojanBench contains malicious issues that are constructed based on four novel attack categories (i.e., embedded as malicious instructions in issues), six delivery vectors (e.g., PDF, or issue comment), and further augmented by perturbations. Our results reveal critical vulnerabilities in the as-deployed modern coding agents, i.e., 66.5% of the malicious issues from IssueTrojanBench penetrate all the guardrails (agent- and LLM-level) of coding agents. Our further analysis shows that rejection is almost entirely from LLMs rather than the agent frameworks, with GPT models broadly vulnerable and Sonnet 4.6 exhibiting more selective, risk-aware blocking of high-impact actions. Our evaluation also highlights that the current agent-level defense strategy offers limited additional protection for coding agents. Our findings highlight the urgent need for stronger agent- and model-level safety mechanisms to protect AI coding agents.

Traditional pentesting uses reconnaissance at each step to uncover unseen weaknesses, build stronger attacks, and advance the objective; we argue that AI agents require the same treatment. We formalize agent reconnaissance by modeling the process and identifying the knowledge assets it seeks to extract: what they are, how they are used, and which agent weaknesses they exploit to give adversaries leverage in indirect prompt injection attacks. We instantiate these insights in Know Your Agent (KYA), a framework that automates black-box, reconnaissance-driven pentesting by probing agents, building target profiles, and using those profiles to craft stronger attacks. We evaluate KYA on agent-security benchmarks and a real-world coding agent, and release KYA, its benchmarks, and baseline implementations for reproducibility.

LLM-agent defenses are typically evaluated one session at a time. In deployment, however, attacks can be distributed across independent agents, teams, and runtimes, leaving each local guardrail with only a sparse fragment. We formalize cross-agent asynchronous campaign attribution: linking sessions from the same latent adversarial campaign without shared runtime state, test-time campaign labels, or attacker identity oracles. We introduce Asynchronous Attribution Fingerprint Vectors ($A^2FV$), a lightweight proxy-side reference protocol for scoring pairwise campaign similarity from proxy-observable tool-use, timing, and prompt residue. We also construct SCD-v1, a controlled persona-matched benchmark with benign traffic, isolated attacks, multi-session campaigns, matched non-oracle evasion, and leakage audits. On SCD-v1, $A^2FV$ achieves 0.82 pairwise AUC for campaign linking, while score-only adaptations of per-session detectors and chunked LLM judges remain near chance under the same task. The strongest fixed signal is carried by structural and stylometric residue, while timing is retained as a diagnostic channel for richer proxy traces. Crossed-style controls show that the signal is partly style-sensitive but not reducible to style alone. Static and dimension-aware non-oracle stress tests further show that pairwise separability persists under controlled evasion. These results establish cross-agent campaign attribution as a distinct evaluation layer for securing LLM agents in the wild.

The transition from stateless generative models in artificial intelligence to stateful, autonomous agents represents an architectural evolution that, while providing the capabilities of long-term planning and the automation of enterprise workflows, also represents the introduction of a new form of security threat, the Chronos Vulnerability. The Chronos Vulnerability represents the threat of memory-based attacks, including the Memory Injection Attack (MINJA) and the sleeper agent, in which the internal belief system of the autonomous agent is compromised, effectively decoupling the attack vector from the final catastrophic event. This study formalizes the threat model for persistence-based attacks and the threat of Dynamics Blindness in the context of the World of Workflows benchmark, demonstrating that traditional endpoint content filters are insufficient for the current stateful architecture. Consequently, this study synthesizes a defense-in-depth landscape, categorizing emerging frameworks such as diagnostic trajectory guardrails (AgentDoG), formal temporal verification (Agent-C), immunological memory consensus (A-MemGuard), and hardware-anchored trust via GPU-based Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) and Zero-Trust memory architectures.