AI Agent Security Benchmarks

Agent benchmarks have become the de facto measure of frontier AI competence, guiding model selection, investment, and deployment. However, reward hacking, where agents maximize a score without performing the intended task, emerges spontaneously in frontier models without overfitting. We argue that benchmarks must be secure by design. From past incidents of reward hacks, we derive a taxonomy of eight recurring flaw patterns and compile them into the Agent-Eval Checklist for benchmark designers. We condense the insights into BenchJack, an automated red-teaming system that drives coding agents to audit benchmarks and identify possible reward-hacking exploits in a clairvoyant manner. Moreover, we extend BenchJack to an iterative generative-adversarial pipeline that discovers new flaws and patches them iteratively to improve benchmark robustness. We apply BenchJack to 10 popular agent benchmarks spanning software engineering, web navigation, desktop computing, and terminal operations. BenchJack synthesizes reward-hacking exploits that achieve near-perfect scores on most of the benchmarks without solving a single task, surfacing 219 distinct flaws across the eight classes. Moreover, BenchJack's extended pipeline reduces the hackable-task ratio from near 100% to under 10% on four benchmarks without fatal design flaws, fully patching WebArena and OSWorld within three iterations. Our results show that evaluation pipelines have not internalized an adversarial mindset, and that proactive auditing could help close the security gap for the fast-paced benchmarking space.

Reusable skills are becoming a common interface for extending large language model agents, packaging procedural guidance with access to files, tools, memory, and execution environments. However, this modularity introduces attack surfaces that are largely missed by existing safety evaluations: even when the user request is benign, unsafe influence may reside in skill guidance, local artifacts, or execution-environment files that steer the agent toward unsafe actions. We present SkillSafetyBench, a runnable benchmark for evaluating such skill-mediated safety failures. SkillSafetyBench includes 155 adversarial cases across 47 tasks, 6 risk domains, and 30 safety categories, each evaluated with a case-specific rule-based verifier. Experiments with multiple CLI agents and model backends show that non-user attacks can consistently induce unsafe behavior, with distinct failure patterns across domains, attack methods, and scaffold-model pairings. Our findings suggest that agent safety depends not only on model-level alignment, but also on how agents interpret skills, trust workflow context, and act through executable environments.

Web-browsing AI agents are increasingly deployed in enterprise settings under strict whitelists of approved domains, yet adversaries can still influence them by embedding hidden instructions in the HTML pages those domains serve. Existing red-teaming resources fall short of this scenario: prompt-injection benchmarks ship pre-built adversarial pages that whitelisted agents cannot reach, and generic LLM scanners probe the model API rather than its retrieved content. We present IPI-proxy, an open-source toolkit for red-teaming web-browsing agents against indirect prompt injection (IPI). At its core is an intercepting proxy that rewrites real HTTP responses from whitelisted domains in flight, embedding payloads drawn from a unified library of 820 deduplicated attack strings extracted from six published benchmarks (BIPIA, InjecAgent, AgentDojo, Tensor Trust, WASP, and LLMail-Inject). A YAML-driven test harness independently parameterizes the payload set, the embedding technique (HTML comment, invisible CSS, or LLM-generated semantic prose), and the HTML insertion point (6 locations from \icode{head_meta} to \icode{script_comment}), enabling parameter-sweep evaluation without mock pages or sandboxed environments. A companion exfiltration tracker logs successful callbacks. This paper describes the threat model, situates IPI-proxy among contemporary IPI benchmarks and red-teaming tools, and details its architecture, design decisions, and configuration interface. By bridging static benchmarks and live deployment, IPI-proxy gives AI security teams a reproducible substrate for measuring and hardening web-browsing agents against indirect prompt injection on the same retrieval surface attackers exploit in production.

Recent work on LLM-driven autonomous penetration testing reports promising results, but existing systems often combine many architectural, prompting, and tool-integration choices, making it difficult to tell what is gained over a simple agent scaffold. We present cochise, a 597 LOC Python reference harness for autonomous penetration-testing experiments. Cochise connects an LLM-driven agent to a Linux execution host over SSH and supports controlled target environments reachable from that jump host. The prototype implements a separated Planner--Executor architecture in which long-term state is maintained outside the LLM context, while a ReAct-style executor issues commands over SSH and self-corrects based on command outputs. The scenario prompt can be adapted to different target environments. To demonstrate the efficacy of our minimal harness, we evaluate it against a live third-party testbed called Game of Active Directory (GOAD). Alongside the harness, we release replay and analysis tools: (i) cochise-replay for offline visualization of captured runs, (ii) cochise-analyze-alogs and cochise-analyze-graphs for cost, token, duration, and compromise analysis, and (iii) a corpus of JSON trajectory logs from GOAD runs, allowing researchers to study agent behavior without provisioning the 48--64 GB RAM / 190 GB storage testbed themselves. Cochise is intended not as a state-of-the-art pen-testing agent, but as reusable experimental infrastructure for comparing models, agent architectures, and penetration-testing traces.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled agentic systems for complex, multi-step tasks; cybersecurity is emerging as a prominent application. To evaluate such agents, researchers widely adopt Capture The Flag (CTF) benchmarks. However, current CTF benchmarks reuse existing challenges, which exposes them to data contamination and potential cheating. Notably, we confirmed these issues in practice by integrating web search tools into an existing agent. To address these limitations, we present CTFusion, a streaming evaluation framework built on Live CTFs. To achieve this, CTFusion preserves per-agent independence under a single team account and reduces competition impact by forwarding only the first correct flag per challenge. Moreover, we implement CTFusion as a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server on the widely used CTFd platform, which offers broad applicability to diverse CTF events and agent types. Through experiments with three LLMs, two agents, and five Live CTFs, we demonstrate that existing CTF benchmarks can be unreliable in assessing LLM-based agents, while CTFusion can serve as a robust solution for evaluating cybersecurity agents. We release CTFusion as open source to foster future research in this area.

AI agents are rapidly gaining capabilities that could significantly reshape cybersecurity, making rigorous evaluation urgent. A critical capability is exploitation: turning a vulnerability, which is not yet an attack, into a concrete security impact, such as unauthorized file access or code execution. Exploitation is a particularly challenging task because it requires low-level program reasoning (e.g., about memory layout), runtime adaptation, and sustained progress over long horizons. Meanwhile, it is inherently dual-use, supporting defensive workflows while lowering the barrier for offense. Despite its importance and diagnostic value, exploitation remains under-evaluated. To address this gap, we introduce ExploitGym, a large-scale, diverse, realistic benchmark on the exploitation capabilities of AI agents. Given a program input that triggers a vulnerability, ExploitGym tasks agents with progressively extending it into a working exploit. The benchmark comprises 898 instances sourced from real-world vulnerabilities across three domains, including userspace programs, Google's V8 JavaScript engine, and the Linux kernel. We vary the security protections applied to each instance, isolating their impact on agent performance. All configurations are packaged in reproducible containerized environments. Our evaluation shows that while exploitation remains challenging, frontier models can successfully exploit a non-trivial fraction of vulnerabilities. For example, the strongest configurations are Anthropic's latest model Claude Mythos Preview and OpenAI's GPT-5.5, which produce working exploits for 157 and 120 instances, respectively. Notably, even with widely used defenses enabled, models retain non-trivial success rates. These results establish ExploitGym as an effective testbed for exploitation and highlight the growing cybersecurity risks posed by increasingly capable AI agents.

AI pentesting agents are increasingly credible as offensive security systems, but current benchmarks still provide limited guidance on which will perform best in real-world targets. Existing evaluation protocols assess and optimize for predefined goals such as capture-the-flag, remote code execution, exploit reproduction, or trajectory similarity, in simplified or narrow settings. These tools are valuable for measuring bounded capabilities, yet they do not adequately capture the complexity, open-ended exploration, and strategic decision-making required in realistic pentesting. In this paper, we present a practical evaluation protocol that shifts assessment from task completion to validated vulnerability discovery, allowing evaluation in sufficiently complex targets spanning multiple attack surfaces and vulnerability classes. The protocol combines structured ground-truth with LLM-based semantic matching to identify vulnerabilities, bipartite resolution to score findings under realistic ambiguity, continuous ground-truth maintenance, repeated and cumulative evaluation of stochastic agents, efficiency metrics, and reduced-suite selection for sustainable experimentation. This protocol extends the state of the art by enabling a more realistic, operationally informative comparison of AI pentesting agents. To enable reproducibility, we also release expert-annotated ground truth and code for the proposed evaluation protocol: https://github.com/ethiack/ethibench.

The rapid proliferation of LLM-based autonomous agents in real operating system environments introduces a new category of safety risk beyond content safety: behavior jailbreak, where an adversary induces an agent to execute dangerous OS-level operations with irreversible consequences. Existing benchmarks either evaluate safety at the semantic layer alone, missing physical-layer harms, or fail to isolate test cases, letting earlier runs contaminate later ones. We present LITMUS (LLM-agents In-OS Testing for Measuring Unsafe Subversion), a benchmark addressing both gaps via a semantic-physical dual verification mechanism and OS-level state rollback. LITMUS comprises 819 high-risk test cases organized into one harmful seed subset and six attack-extended subsets covering three adversarial paradigms (jailbreak speaking, skill injection, and entity wrapping), plus a fully automated multi-agent evaluation framework judging behavior at both conversational and OS-level physical layers. Evaluation across frontier agents reveals three findings: (1) current agents lack effective safety awareness, with strong models (e.g., Claude Sonnet 4.6) still executing 40.64% of high-risk operations; (2) agents exhibit pervasive Execution Hallucination (EH), verbally refusing a request while the dangerous operation has already completed at the system level, invisible to every prior semantic-only framework; and (3) skill injection and entity wrapping attacks achieve high success rates, exposing pronounced agent vulnerabilities. LITMUS provides the first standardized platform for reproducible, physically grounded behavioral safety evaluation of LLM agents in real OS environments.

Benchmarks for coding agents increasingly measure source-level software repair, and cybersecurity benchmarks increasingly measure broad capture-the-flag performance. Classical binary reverse engineering remains less precisely specified: given only an executable, can an agent recover validation logic and produce an input, serial, artifact, or key generator accepted by the program? We introduce CrackMeBench, a benchmark for evaluating language-model agents on educational CrackMe-style reverse-engineering tasks. CrackMeBench focuses on deterministic binary validation problems with executable oracles, symbol-poor binaries, explicit local tool access, and externally scored submissions rather than free-form explanations. The v0 benchmark combines eight public calibration CrackMes with twelve generated main-score tasks built from seeded C, Rust, and Go templates, and agents run through an equal shell interface in a no-network Linux Docker sandbox with standard reverse-engineering tools. In a three-model evaluation with a five-minute budget and three scored submissions per task, pass@3 on the generated split is 11/12 tasks (92%) for GPT-5.5, 7/12 (58%) for Claude Opus 4.7, and 5/12 (42%) for Kimi K2. The harder generated half separates the models more sharply, with pass@3 of 5/6, 2/6, and 1/6, respectively; on the eight-task public calibration split, pass@3 is 3/8, 2/8, and 1/8. CrackMeBench records pass@1 and pass@3, scored submissions, wall-clock time, command traces, tool categories, provider-reported token usage, estimated cost, and qualitative failure labels, providing a reproducible testbed for measuring progress from source-code reasoning toward autonomous binary analysis while restricting scope to educational, purpose-built programs.

Agentic language-model systems increasingly rely on mutable execution contexts, including files, memory, tools, skills, and auxiliary artifacts, creating security risks beyond explicit user prompts. This paper presents DeepTrap, an automated framework for discovering contextual vulnerabilities in OpenClaw. DeepTrap formulates adversarial context manipulation as a black-box trajectory-level optimization problem that balances risk realization, benign-task preservation, and stealth. It combines risk-conditioned evaluation, multi-objective trajectory scoring, reward-guided beam search, and reflection-based deep probing to identify high-value compromised contexts. We construct a 42-case benchmark spanning six vulnerability classes and seven operational scenarios, and evaluate nine target models using attack and utility grading scores. Results show that contextual compromise can induce substantial unsafe behavior while preserving user-facing task completion, demonstrating that final-response evaluation is insufficient. The findings highlight the need for execution-centric security evaluation of agentic AI systems. Our code is released at: https://github.com/ZJUICSR/DeepTrap

We introduce a red-teaming methodology that exposes harder-to-catch attacks for coding-agent monitors, suggesting that current practices may under-elicit attacks and overstate monitor performance. We identify three challenges with current red-teaming. First, mode collapse in attack generation, which we reduce with a novel attack taxonomy for broader coverage. Second, a conceive-execute gap: frontier LLMs can propose strong attack ideas or execute them, but not all at once. We mitigate this by decomposing attack construction into strategy generation, execution, and post-hoc trajectory refinement. Third, manual elicitation is costly to scale, which we address with our semi-automated red-teaming pipeline. Applied to BashArena, an AI control setting for tool-using coding agents, this pipeline produces MonitoringBench, a benchmark of 2,644 attack trajectories for evaluating monitor capabilities and failure modes. Our pipeline produces more diverse and stronger attacks: Opus-4.5 monitor's catch rate falls from 94.9% on elicited-only Opus attacks to 60.3% on our best refined attacks, with larger drops for several mid-tier monitors. Attacks optimized against three development monitors generalize to ten held-out monitors, with catch rates generally increasing with monitor capability. Using this benchmark, we provide a snapshot of the current monitor capabilities and find that frontier monitors often detect suspicious actions but fall for persuasion or fail to calibrate suspiciousness scores appropriately, suggesting tractable paths for improvement. MonitoringBench provides both a static benchmark for current tool-use monitors and a reusable methodology for refreshing these evaluations as agents and monitors improve.

Large language model agents increasingly operate through an intermediate skill layer that mediates between user intent and concrete task execution. This layer is widely treated as an organizational abstraction, but we argue it is also a privilege boundary that current models routinely exceed. We present \textbf{FORTIS}, a benchmark that evaluates over-privilege in agent skills across two stages: whether a model selects the minimally sufficient skill from a large overlapping library, and whether it executes that skill without expanding into broader tools or actions than the skill permits. Across ten frontier models and three domains, we find that over-privileged behavior is the norm rather than the exception. Models consistently reach for higher-privilege skills and tools than the task requires, failing at both stages at rates that remain high even for the strongest available models. Failure is especially severe under the ordinary conditions of real user interaction: incomplete specification, convenience framing, and proximity to skill boundaries. None of these requires adversarial construction. The results indicate that the skill layer, far from containing agent behavior, is itself a primary source of privilege escalation in current systems.

A collective of AI agents collaborating on a task has the potential to outclass any individual agent for that task. We study the robustness of such collectives against possible imposters, i.e., agents that deliberately try to mislead their peers. Since a single imposter could undo the collective's advantage, we need to detect them. We consider two strategies: (i) incorporate imposter detection into the participating agents, or (ii) use a dedicated imposter detector outside the collective. We investigate this empirically on Gambit, a testbed in which 4 reasoning agents deliberate on chess moves. The setting is small but still challenging for frontier models. Chess allows objective, quantitative assessment (via a state-of-the-art chess engine) of both the gain of using a collective and the damage done by imposters. We find that merely warning the agents of potential imposter presence is not beneficial: it degrades decisions when no imposter is present, provokes reactions ranging from self-accusation to scapegoating, inflates token use, and reveals to the imposter how it was uncovered. We therefore recommend a detector that reads the collective's deliberation but never joins it and only returns a verdict. Such a detector must recalibrate to new attack strategies after very few examples, rather than wait for full retraining. In our benchmark, a 3B language model with a meta-trained classification head achieves that: a single gradient step on 20 labeled examples suffices to adapt to an unseen imposter strategy. At matched zero-shot accuracy, this detector yields 8x the adaptation gain of standard finetuning, at 14x lower training cost. We release the Gambit benchmark, with 37,352 labeled deliberations spanning 240 evolved imposter strategies. Code and data: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/gambit.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in offensive cybersecurity. In this paper, we reveal an interesting phenomenon: different agents exhibit distinct attack patterns. Specifically, each agent exhibits an attack-selection bias, disproportionately concentrating its efforts on a narrow subset of attack families regardless of prompt variations. To systematically quantify this behavior, we introduce CyBiasBench, a comprehensive 630-session benchmark that evaluates five agents on three targets and four prompt conditions with ten attack families. We identify explicit bias across agents, with different dominant attack families and varying entropy levels in their attack-family allocation distributions. Such bias is better characterized as a trait of the agents, rather than a factor associated with the attack success rate. Furthermore, our experiments reveal a bias momentum effect, where agents resist explicit steering toward attack families that conflict with their bias. This forced distribution shift does not yield measurable improvements in attack performance. To ensure reproducibility and facilitate future research, we release an interactive result dashboard at https://trustworthyai.co.kr/CyBiasBench/ and a reproducibility artifact with aggregated session-level statistics and full evaluation scripts at https://github.com/Harry24k/CyBiasBench.

Enterprise agents increasingly operate inside scoped retrieval systems, delegated workflows, and policy-constrained evidence environments. In these settings, access control can be enforced correctly while the system still produces an answer that appears complete even though material evidence lies outside the caller's authorization boundary. This paper introduces Partial Evidence Bench, a deterministic benchmark for measuring that failure mode. The benchmark ships three scenario families -- due diligence, compliance audit, and security incident response -- with 72 tasks total, ACL-partitioned corpora, oracle complete answers, oracle authorized-view answers, oracle completeness judgments, and structured gap-report oracles. It evaluates systems along four surfaces: answer correctness, completeness awareness, gap-report quality, and unsafe completeness behavior. Checked-in baselines show that silent filtering is catastrophically unsafe across all shipped families, while explicit fail-and-report behavior eliminates unsafe completeness without collapsing the task into trivial abstention. Preliminary real-model runs show model-dependent and scenario-sensitive differences in whether systems overclaim completeness, conservatively underclaim, or report incompleteness in an enterprise-usable form. The benchmark's broader contribution is to make a governance-critical agent failure measurable without human judges or contamination-prone static corpora.

AI agents are increasingly deployed across diverse domains to automate complex workflows through long-horizon and high-stakes action executions. Due to their high capability and flexibility, such agents raise significant security and safety concerns. A growing number of real-world incidents have shown that adversaries can easily manipulate agents into performing harmful actions, such as leaking API keys, deleting user data, or initiating unauthorized transactions. Evaluating agent security is inherently challenging, as agents operate in dynamic, untrusted environments involving external tools, heterogeneous data sources, and frequent user interactions. However, realistic, controllable, and reproducible environments for large-scale risk assessment remain largely underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce the DecodingTrust-Agent Platform (DTap), the first controllable and interactive red-teaming platform for AI agents, spanning 14 real-world domains and over 50 simulation environments that replicate widely used systems such as Google Workspace, Paypal, and Slack. To scale the risk assessment of agents in DTap, we further propose DTap-Red, the first autonomous red-teaming agent that systematically explores diverse injection vectors (e.g., prompt, tool, skill, environment, combinations) and autonomously discovers effective attack strategies tailored to varying malicious goals. Using DTap-Red, we curate DTap-Bench, a large-scale red-teaming dataset comprising high-quality instances across domains, each paired with a verifiable judge to automatically validate attack outcomes. Through DTap, we conduct large-scale evaluations of popular AI agents built on various backbone models, spanning security policies, risk categories, and attack strategies, revealing systematic vulnerability patterns and providing valuable insights for developing secure next-generation agents.

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.

Memory systems enable otherwise stateless LLM agents to persist user information across sessions, but also introduce a new attack surface. The Trojan Hippo attack is a class of persistent memory attacks that operates under a more realistic threat model than prior memory poisoning work. The attacker plants a dormant payload into an agent's long-term memory via a single untrusted tool call (e.g., a crafted email), which activates only when the user later discusses sensitive topics such as finance, health, or identity, and exfiltrates high-value personal data to the attacker. While anecdotal demonstrations of such attacks have appeared against deployed systems, no prior work systematically evaluates them across heterogeneous memory architectures and defenses. We introduce Trojan Hippo Bench, a dynamic evaluation framework for persistent memory attacks and memory-layer defenses, comprising two components, (1) an OpenEvolve-based adaptive red-teaming benchmark that stress-tests defenses and memory backends against continuously refined attacks, and (2) a capability-aware security-utility analysis for persistent memory systems, enabling principled reasoning about defense deployment across different usage profiles. Instantiated on an email assistant across four memory backends (explicit tool memory, agentic memory, RAG, and sliding-window context), the undefended Trojan Hippo attack achieves up to 85-100% attack success rate (ASR) against current frontier models from OpenAI and Google, with planted memories successfully activating even after 100 benign sessions. We evaluate four memory-system defenses inspired by basic security principles; they reduce attack success to as low as 0-5%, but at utility costs that vary widely with the task mix. Effective real-world deployment thus remains an open challenge that Trojan Hippo Bench is built to study; we release it to support reuse and extension.

An agentic-AI runtime issues tool calls, sends messages, and actuates devices on behalf of an LLM. Catching the four ways an action can diverge from its audit record -- F1 gate-bypass, F2 audit-forgery, silent host failure, F4 wrong-target, -- is a load-bearing safety property of any such runtime. We show that upstream OpenClaw, the most engineered single-user agentic-AI gateway in public release, catches none of them: recall is 0.000 on every cell of every confusion matrix, on a 1600-sample template baseline through OpenClaw's actual production command-line interface (CLI) and on a ten-LLM cross-model generalisation run. Detecting F1--F4 requires seven specific runtime structures absent from OpenClaw's source tree: a biconditional checker, a hash-chained audit log, an extension admission gate, a two-layer egress guard, a Bell-LaPadula classification policy, a module-signing trust root, and a bootstrap seal. enclawed-oss -- an MIT-licensed drop-in fork that ships all seven -- reaches $P = R = F_1 =$ accuracy $= 1.000$ on the same input. The gap is structural, not parametric: a six-line append-only widening of enclawed-oss's data-loss-prevention (DLP) regex catalog raises per-channel F3 detection by 14.6% net at unchanged precision; the same edit on OpenClaw has nowhere to land. The harness deliberately exercises real Discord and Telegram channels -- plugin categories the first enclawed release deleted as unsafe -- to show F1--F4 detection extends to those previously-unsafe extensions. With architectural superiority for security and feature parity for extensions, we argue that unhardened agentic-AI runtimes are architecturally obsolete: a strictly better alternative exists, is adoptable today, and the gap requires re-architecture rather than configuration. We invite reviewers to apply the harness to any candidate runtime.

Multi-server MCP agents create an information-flow control problem: faithful tool composition can turn individually benign read/write permissions into cross-boundary credential propagation -- a structural side effect of workflow topology, not necessarily malicious model behavior. We present MCPHunt, to our knowledge the first controlled benchmark that isolates non-adversarial, verbatim credential propagation across multi-server MCP trust boundaries, with three methodological contributions: (1) canary-based taint tracking that reduces propagation detection to objective string matching; (2) an environment-controlled coverage design with risky, benign, and hard-negative conditions that validates pipeline soundness and controls for credential-format confounds; (3) CRS stratification that disentangles task-mandated propagation (faithful execution of verbatim-transfer instructions) from policy-violating propagation (credentials included despite the option to redact). Across 3,615 main-benchmark traces from 5 models spanning 147 tasks and 9 mechanism families, policy-violating propagation rates reach 11.5--41.3% across all models. This propagation is pathway-specific (25x cross-mechanism range) and concentrated in browser-mediated data flows; hard-negative controls provide evidence that production-format credentials are not necessary -- prompt-directed cross-boundary data flow is sufficient. A prompt-mitigation study across 3 models reduces policy-violating propagation by up to 97% while preserving 80.5% utility, but effectiveness varies with instruction-following capability -- suggesting that prompt-level defenses alone may not suffice. Code, traces, and labeling pipeline are released under MIT and CC BY 4.0.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly proposed to automate offensive security tasks, with recent studies reporting near human-level success rates in Capture-the-Flag (CTF) challenges. We here revisit these results, providing a second look at these claims. We engineer different agent architectures of increasing complexity and modularity on 30 web-based CTFs challenges spanning 14 vulnerability classes. We instantiate these agents with multiple LLM backbones, and compare them with claude-code, a general-purpose agent that automatically determines its internal architecture. Our evaluation yields three main findings. First, claude-code achieves performance comparable to the engineered architectures (19/30 solved tasks), suggesting that general-purpose agents are strong baselines for offensive security tasks. Second, both our architectures and claude-code struggle in the same challenge categories, revealing persistent barriers that keep current agents below human-level capability. Third, by leveraging our manually designed architectures we can systematically measure the impact of additional components, finding that structured orchestration of specialized roles outperforms monolithic designs, improving run-to-run consistency, and reducing execution costs.

Agent Skills package SKILL.md files, scripts, reference documents, and repository context into reusable capability units, turning pre-load auditing from single-prompt filtering into cross-file security review. Existing guardrails often flag risk but recover malicious intent inconsistently under semantics-preserving rewrites. This paper formulates pre-load auditing for untrusted Agent Skills as a robust three-way classification task and introduces SkillGuard-Robust, which combines role-aware evidence extraction, selective semantic verification, and consistency-preserving adjudication. We evaluate SkillGuard-Robust on SkillGuardBench and two public-ecosystem extensions through five large evaluation views ranging from 254 to 404 packages. On the 404-package held-out aggregate, SkillGuard-Robust reaches 97.30% overall exact match, 98.33% malicious-risk recall, and 98.89% attack exact consistency. On the 254-package external-ecosystem view, it reaches 99.66%, 100.00%, and 100.00%, respectively. These results support a bounded conclusion: factorized package auditing materially improves frozen and public-ecosystem robustness, while harsher external-source transfer remains an open challenge.

The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) has significantly enhanced their collaborative problem-solving capabilities, but it has also expanded their attack surfaces, exposing them to vulnerabilities such as prompt infection and compromised inter-agent communication. While emerging graph-based anomaly detection methods show promise in protecting these networks, the field currently lacks a standardized, reproducible environment to train these models and evaluate their efficacy. To address this gap, we introduce Gammaf (Graph-based Anomaly Monitoring for LLM Multi-Agent systems Framework), an open-source benchmarking platform. Gammaf is not a novel defense mechanism itself, but rather a comprehensive evaluation architecture designed to generate synthetic multi-agent interaction datasets and benchmark the performance of existing and future defense models. The proposed framework operates through two interdependent pipelines: a Training Data Generation stage, which simulates debates across varied network topologies to capture interactions as robust attributed graphs, and a Defense System Benchmarking stage, which actively evaluates defense models by dynamically isolating flagged adversarial nodes during live inference rounds. Through rigorous evaluation using established defense baselines (XG-Guard and BlindGuard) across multiple knowledge tasks (such as MMLU-Pro and GSM8K), we demonstrate Gammaf's high utility, topological scalability, and execution efficiency. Furthermore, our experimental results reveal that equipping an LLM-MAS with effective attack remediation not only recovers system integrity but also substantially reduces overall operational costs by facilitating early consensus and cutting off the extensive token generation typical of adversarial agents.

Agentic AI systems introduce a security surface that is qualitatively different from that of stateless LLMs. They persist memory, invoke external tools, coordinate with peer agents, and operate across sessions, allowing attacks to emerge not only at the prompt interface but also through architectural state, delegated authority, and long-horizon interactions. Existing security taxonomies, however, primarily organize threats by attack type, such as prompt injection or jailbreaking, and therefore obscure where in the agentic stack a threat arises and over what timescale it manifests. We propose the Layered Attack Surface Model (\lasm), a structural taxonomy for agentic AI security. \lasm decomposes the agentic stack into seven layers -- Foundation, Cognitive, Memory, Tool Execution, Multi-Agent Coordination, Ecosystem, and Governance -- and augments them with a four-class temporality axis covering instantaneous, session-persistent, cross-session cumulative, and sub-session-stack threats. We use this 7$\times$4 framework to analyze 116 papers from 2021--2026. The resulting map reveals that the upper layers of the agentic stack remain sharply under-explored, especially for long-horizon and stack-propagating threats; multiple documented attack regions have no corresponding defenses; and current benchmarks provide no coverage for cross-session or sub-session-stack failure modes. We further derive a cross-layer defense taxonomy, defense recipes for canonical attack classes, and a dependency DAG that separates near-term engineering gaps from fundamental research challenges. We release the per-paper coding, robustness scripts, and a reference Agent Bill of Materials schema to support reproducible analysis.

We identify and formalize a novel security risk: Context-Fragmented Violations (CFVs) - a class of policy breaches where individual agent actions appear locally safe and reasonable, yet collectively violate organizational policies because critical policy facts are siloed in different departments private contexts. Existing prompt-based alignment mechanisms and monolithic interceptors are poorly matched to violations that span contextual islands. We propose Distributed Sentinel, a distributed zero-trust enforcement architecture that introduces the Semantic Taint Token (STT) Protocol. Through lightweight sidecar proxies, our system propagates security state across organizational boundaries without exposing raw cross-domain data, enabling Counterfactual Graph Simulation for cross-domain policy verification. We construct PhantomEcosystem, a comprehensive benchmark comprising 9 categories of realistic cross-agent violation scenarios with adversarially balanced safe controls. On this benchmark, Distributed Sentinel achieves F1 = 0.95 with 106ms end-to-end latency (16ms verification + 90ms entity extraction on A100), compared to 0.85 F1 for prompt-based filtering and 0.65 for rule-based DLP. To empirically validate the need for external enforcement, we evaluate eight frontier LLMs in execution-oriented multi-agent workflows with per-agent domain world models. All models exhibit substantial violation rates (14-98%), with cross-domain data flows showing systematically higher violation rates than same-domain flows. These results indicate that self-avoidance is unreliable and that multi-agent security benefits from a centralized enforcement layer operating above individual agents.

Enterprise LLM agents can dramatically improve workplace productivity, but their core capability, retrieving and using internal context to act on a user's behalf, also creates new risks for sensitive information leakage. We introduce CI-Work, a Contextual Integrity (CI)-grounded benchmark that simulates enterprise workflows across five information-flow directions and evaluates whether agents can convey essential content while withholding sensitive context in dense retrieval settings. Our evaluation of frontier models reveals that privacy failures are prevalent (violation rates range from 15.8%-50.9%, with leakage reaching up to 26.7%) and uncovers a counterintuitive trade-off critical for industrial deployment: higher task utility often correlates with increased privacy violations. Moreover, the massive scale of enterprise data and potential user behavior further amplify this vulnerability. Simply increasing model size or reasoning depth fails to address the problem. We conclude that safeguarding enterprise workflows requires a paradigm shift, moving beyond model-centric scaling toward context-centric architectures.

AI-agent guardrails are memoryless: each message is judged in isolation, so an adversary who spreads a single attack across dozens of sessions slips past every session-bound detector because only the aggregate carries the payload. We make three contributions to cross-session threat detection. (1) Dataset. CSTM-Bench is 26 executable attack taxonomies classified by kill-chain stage and cross-session operation (accumulate, compose, launder, inject_on_reader), each bound to one of seven identity anchors that ground-truth "violation" as a policy predicate, plus matched Benign-pristine and Benign-hard confounders. Released on Hugging Face as intrinsec-ai/cstm-bench with two 54-scenario splits: dilution (compositional) and cross_session (12 isolation-invisible scenarios produced by a closed-loop rewriter that softens surface phrasing while preserving cross-session artefacts). (2) Measurement. Framing cross-session detection as an information bottleneck to a downstream correlator LLM, we find that a session-bound judge and a Full-Log Correlator concatenating every prompt into one long-context call both lose roughly half their attack recall moving from dilution to cross_session, well inside any frontier context window. Scope: 54 scenarios per shard, one correlator family (Anthropic Claude), no prompt optimisation; we release it to motivate larger, multi-provider datasets. (3) Algorithm and metric. A bounded-memory Coreset Memory Reader retaining highest-signal fragments at $K=50$ is the only reader whose recall survives both shards. Because ranker reshuffles break KV-cache prefix reuse, we promote $\mathrm{CSR\_prefix}$ (ordered prefix stability, LLM-free) to a first-class metric and fuse it with detection into $\mathrm{CSTM} = 0.7 F_1(\mathrm{CSDA@action}, \mathrm{precision}) + 0.3 \mathrm{CSR\_prefix}$, benchmarking rankers on a single Pareto of recall versus serving stability.

We introduce the Cyber Defense Benchmark, a benchmark for measuring how well large language model (LLM) agents perform the core SOC analyst task of threat hunting: given a database of raw Windows event logs with no guided questions or hints, identify the exact timestamps of malicious events. The benchmark wraps 106 real attack procedures from the OTRF Security-Datasets corpus - spanning 86 MITRE ATT&CK sub-techniques across 12 tactics - into a Gymnasium reinforcement-learning environment. Each episode presents the agent with an in-memory SQLite database of 75,000-135,000 log records produced by a deterministic campaign simulator that time-shifts and entity-obfuscates the raw recordings. The agent must iteratively submit SQL queries to discover malicious event timestamps and explicitly flag them, scored CTF-style against Sigma-rule-derived ground truth. Evaluating five frontier models - Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5, and Gemini 3 Flash - on 26 campaigns covering 105 of 106 procedures, we find that all models fail dramatically: the best model (Claude Opus 4.6) submits correct flags for only 3.8% of malicious events on average, and no run across any model ever finds all flags. We define a passing score as >= 50% recall on every ATT&CK tactic - the minimum bar for unsupervised SOC deployment. No model passes: the leader clears this bar on 5 of 13 tactics and the remaining four on zero. These results suggest that current LLMs are poorly suited for open-ended, evidence-driven threat hunting despite strong performance on curated Q&A security benchmarks.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly proposed for autonomous cybersecurity tasks, but their capabilities in realistic offensive settings remain poorly understood. We present DeepRed, an open-source benchmark for evaluating LLM-based agents on realistic Capture The Flag (CTF) challenges in isolated virtualized environments. DeepRed places an agent in a Kali attacker environment with terminal tools and optional web search, connected over a private network to a target challenge, and records full execution traces for analysis. To move beyond binary solved/unsolved outcomes, we introduce a partial-credit scoring method based on challenge-specific checkpoints derived from public writeups, together with an automated summarise-then-judge labelling pipeline for assigning checkpoint completion from logs. Using DeepRed, we benchmark ten commercially accessible LLMs on ten VM-based CTF challenges spanning different challenge categories. The results indicate that current agents remain limited: the best model achieves only 35% average checkpoint completion, performing strongest on common challenge types and weakest on tasks requiring non-standard discovery and longer-horizon adaptation.