Authorization

Recent investigations of the July 2026 OpenAI-Hugging Face incident motivate two questions: when an assigned task becomes impossible, does an agent stop or escalate, and can observing another agent's behavior change that decision? We study these questions using seven ImpossibleBench tasks with GPT-5.6 Sol, Claude Fable 5.1, and Gemini 3.8 Flash in solo and three-agent settings. Under an explicit-boundary regime with clear authorization rules and restricted tools, no protected tests are modified, although the models differ substantially in whether they escalate, stop silently, or fail to terminate. Under a benchmark-native regime with open shell tools, protected-test changes occur more often after peer activity is introduced and in multi-agent runs. These crossings are typically not described as deliberate cheating: agents often interpret the conflicting test change as prior tampering and restore the file, thereby removing the protected requirement. Our results suggest that boundary crossing can arise from ambiguity about the state a rule is intended to protect, motivating explicit authorization boundaries, authenticated state provenance, and cross-agent monitoring.

AI agents are provisioned the same as employee-owned hosts in many enterprise settings with a static credential set fixed at deployment which includes all permissions the employee role might ever need. Role-based access control made this compromise for human principals because scoping access per task was infeasible. For AI agents, the compromise leaves every credential standing exposed whether or not the current task uses them. These permissions can later be utilised by a compromised or misaligned agent. Prior work (Noyan, 2026) defined this as the task-context mismatch, and proposed a three-source permission architecture which includes role-based permission ceilings, a task permission classifier and policy-based prohibitions, together eliminating the exposure preemptively. The work released a 600-prompt labelled dataset to evaluate it. This paper presents that evaluation end to end by implementing the security gate; a fine-tuned RoBERTa-large encoder which matched few-shot trained Claude Haiku 4.5 on classification quality (macro-F1 0.881 against 0.886, precision 0.897 against 0.842, severity-weighted residual risk 0.63 against 1.12). The results show the trusted component does not need to scale with the agent it supervises, and the scalable-oversight margin for this control method is wide. We also propose an attack-surface elimination metric which shows the role ceiling alone closes 27.9% of the severity-weighted surface and adding the task classifier closes 84.4%. The gap displays security advantages of task-granular access control over role-granular, and AI agents are the first principal type for which the task-granular access control is enforceable because their tasks arrive as machine-readable text. The research establishes task-based access control as a measured, potentially deployable mechanism for reducing attack surface in agentic deployments.

The open web ran on an unwritten bargain: sites admitted crawlers, and search engines sent visitors back. Public measurements show that bargain breaking under AI crawlers and agents. Automated clients now make up most requests, training dominates Cloudflare-classified crawling, and the largest AI platforms fetch thousands of pages for each visitor they return. The web's common control, robots.txt, cannot express identity, purpose, terms, or price, can be circumvented, and newer alternatives are largely proprietary CDN features. We specify terms.txt, a robots.txt-style file for per-path, per-purpose machine-access terms, plus an origin-enforced exchange using Web Bot Auth signatures, signed intent, delegation tokens, HTTP 402 negotiation, and signed receipts. We define what the exchange can enforce, audit, and leave to contract. A dependency-free implementation adds 0.20 to 0.65 ms per request on one vCPU.

Tool-using language agents can delegate and revoke permissions while acting through external services. We show that two authorization histories can have identical current permissions and identical all-pairs reachability yet require opposite decisions after the same direct-edge revocation. We formalize the information needed to preserve such distinctions as a residual authorization state. We prove that exponentially many future-distinct states can share one fixed transitive closure, and give exact or tight asymptotic bounds on the state required by an exact monitor as delegation redundancy varies. ResidualAuth compiles these constructions into paired language-agent episodes. Across four open-weight models, a fixed 256-token summary solved 0-2/16 pairs, sham reads solved 0/16, and authenticated current-query reads solved 15-16/16. In a separate held-out online-memory diagnostic, exact ledger serializations fit all 128 four-coordinate pairs at both 768 and 1,024 tokens. At either cap, factually supported model-written memories sufficient for every prespecified continuation solved at most 1/128 pairs per model. A hard gate reduced eight observed unauthorized effects to zero without changing the preceding attempts. These results distinguish required authorization state, usable decision information, online state maintenance, and effect mediation.

Contextualized visual personalization can retrieve a true record yet apply it to the wrong visual subject. We formalize when a record may condition an answer as \emph{record authorization}: subject presence ($P$), record-edge validity ($E$), and answer support ($S$) must all hold. We call violations visual memory misbinding (VMM). We construct RecordAuth-Diag, a 3,690-case matched diagnostic suite that changes one image--record edge while holding the query, question, record text, and image multiset fixed. Card removal and nonce relabeling attribute these failures to supplied records. Raw-bank failures span Qwen-, Phi-, and Gemma-family interfaces: Gemma-3-4B-IT reaches 63.69% local unauthorized use at 25.75% clean recall. CoViP remains at 26.02%, versus 22.49% for its Qwen backbone at similar clean recall. Typed pre-generation authorization reduces Qwen card exposure on RecordAuth-Diag from 43.63% to 3.06%, while positive recall changes from 86.26% to 60.90%. Full $P\wedge E\wedge S$ validation uses 560 localized DAVIS cases: top-1 relevance and typed authorization have comparable release (28.93% and 28.39%) but 6.79% and 0.89% unsafe release, respectively. Of the 33 additional unsafe cases removed, 27 are support, 4 edge, 2 clean, and 0 boundary cases. Thus the observed increment is an $E\wedge S$ decision dominated by support, not an edge check alone. Appearance supplies $E$ evidence only conditional on $P$; authenticated subject tokens instantiate the missing presence witness as a sufficiency control. The claims concern the evaluated contracts, not natural prevalence, consent, or visual identity

Long-running LLM agents rely on persistent memory to carry state across interactions, including permissions, restrictions, and revocations. When memory misrepresents this evolving authorization state, the agent's own records can grant authority that the underlying history never permitted, resulting in misaligned behavior without any external attacks. We term this failure endogenous authorization laundering, where spurious permissions written into memory lead to unauthorized actions as their provenance is washed away. We then introduce EAL-Bench, which measures how accurately persistent memory preserves evolving authorization state and whether errors propagate to downstream unauthorized actions. We evaluate five LLMs as memory writers and two as executors across procurement, cybersecurity, and finance. We find that under incremental memory updates, writers create false authority for up to 50.2% of unauthorized requests; once false authority is present, executors act on it in 98.6% of trials. Two safeguards, requiring stored permissions to be backed by valid source events, and tracking permission changes through bounded event sourcing, substantially reduce laundering, but both also reject more legitimate actions, exposing a safety-utility tradeoff. Persistent memory is therefore not merely a performance component, but a part of an LLM agent's effective authorization policy.

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

The key limitation of current state-of-the-art influence-based guardrails is that they do not reliably distinguish a legitimate, user-authorized action from a malicious, unauthorized action when both rely on external tool information. This ambiguity can cause benign actions to trigger unnecessary verification and intervention, reducing utility and adding latency. We expose this limitation through an authorization-equivalence audit of 96 conditions derived from 24 base cases. Within matched source comparisons, we hold authorization, the exact committed action, and its intended effect fixed, changing only whether a required value comes from the user or a legitimate tool result. Although the action remains unchanged, this harmless relocation shifts the causal signal toward the attack region in all 24 cases under both Llama and Gemma scorers. Matched unauthorized controls show that the signal remains attack-sensitive, yet the benign relocation produces a larger average score shift than the actual change in authorization. Architecture-level evaluation shows how this mismatch propagates through guardrail designs. With a semantic monitor, attack success is 0% and utility is 28%, compared with 16% and 60% without it. A shadow-based guardrail allows every tested harmless run, yet does not reject matched unauthorized actions more often overall: 57.5% of unauthorized runs pass automatically before reaching the later security check, compared with 29.2% of authorized runs. These results show that the studied causal signal reveals what shaped an action without reliably encoding whether the action was authorized, and that reference construction and routing are integral to the effective security decision.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) has become the de-facto interface for connecting LLM agents to enterprise tools, and adoption has been explosive: within a year, large organizations went from zero to dozens of internally built MCP servers. That speed created a governance crisis. Each team implemented authentication independently -- some with no auth, some with API keys, some with full OAuth -- producing a fragmented landscape with no consistent way to authorize callers, track who did what, or offboard a departing employee across the fleet. This paper reports an industry deployment that resolves the crisis with a centralized MCP gateway: a single aggregation, governance, and authentication layer that fronts every downstream MCP server. We make four contributions grounded in production experience. First, a two-axis authentication model crossing persona (interactive user vs. automated non-user) with credential type (no-auth, static/dynamic API key, PKCE, client credentials, platform app-context). Second, a gateway authentication layer supporting three enterprise SSO grants and three token-provisioning models: Bring-Your-Own-Token, Generate-Your-Own-Token, and delegated OAuth via RFC 8693 token exchange. Third, three end-to-end identity flows -- User-to-OAuth2, Non-user-to-Service-Account, and User-to-Service-Account -- composing client, gateway, and server. Fourth, the deployment evolution from CDN/WAF/edge perimeter to private MCP tunnels and enterprise-wide connectors. The architecture is in production, fronting dozens of MCP servers across web, desktop, custom-SDK, and low-code clients.

Shared memory helps language-model agents reuse information across long workflows, yet relevant evidence may not be admissible for a particular agent or action. Because restrictions propagate through derivations, summaries can conceal private, poisoned, untrusted, or revoked sources, enabling unauthorized reads or unsafe actions. Existing approaches provide semantic retrieval, scoped access, or lineage tracking, but do not clearly separate hard authorization from graded trust or adapt evidence requirements to action risk. We introduce MAP-Graph, a provenance-aware memory layer that represents agents, sources, memories, claims, and actions in a typed execution graph. It traces ancestry, excludes permission-ineligible records, reranks eligible memories by semantic similarity and multiplicative path trust, and applies a risk-sensitive gate before action execution while retaining affected lineage for audit. On a controlled benchmark of 2,700 synthetic tasks per method across three domains, MAP-Graph achieves 94.96% overall task success, 72.70% exact decision accuracy, and 90.22% in the clean setting, where success requires a correct \textsc{Allow} rather than a safe intervention. Ablations isolate the roles of permission filtering, path trust, and action gating, while transfer tests with two additional backbones preserve the exact-decision and access-control advantages. These results support provenance as an operational control signal, rather than only post-hoc audit metadata, within the evaluated setting.

Residential virtual power plants (VPPs) can provide grid flexibility by shifting household demand, but physical flexibility becomes dependable capacity only when residents authorize a plan and the promised response is delivered. Existing benchmarks evaluate control but omit event-specific authorization. We present EnergyBridge, a benchmark and agent framework connecting capacity reporting, household authorization, and physical execution. It combines region-specific EnergyPlus environments for Tianjin and Berlin with an LLM-based User Participation Simulator. Against 584 persona- and event-matched human role-play judgments, the LLM-based User Participation Simulator preserves method ordering with a 5.3-point mean absolute acceptance error. Across conventional controllers and agent baselines, EnergyBridge achieves the highest simulated authorization, lowest event-window energy, and the most reliable capacity commitment in both regions. We release human data and codes for reproducible human-centered grid-flexibility research: https://github.com/Agentic-Intelligence-Lab/EnergyBridge.

Fraud operations must allocate events among automatic approval, analyst review, and automatic blocking even though the labels needed to evaluate these actions are selective and delayed. Predictive scores order cases, but they do not show whether the evidence is current and representative enough to delegate an action to the model. We develop freshness-constrained audit capacity (FCAC), a decision-support framework that treats automation as an authorization decision constrained by action risk, evidence freshness, and shared review capacity. It evaluates candidate action regions from mature randomized audits and a prespecified temporal allowance. Supported regions are automated; unsupported regions remain in review. The resulting decision record reports evidence age, audit demand, total review workload, value exposure, and compatible temporal change. We show that current action risk is unidentified without restricting unobserved label evolution. Under representative randomized audits, label-independent evidence windows, and a prespecified condition linking historical and current action risk, we derive simultaneous finite-sample control of unsafe authorization. Chronological evaluations with simulated audits on IEEE-CIS, ULB-Worldline, and Elliptic++ yield zero-drift automation rates of 84.4%, 67.4%, and 81.3%, with total review workloads of 24.1%, 46.0%, and 43.1%. The experiments reveal an audit-capacity trade-off: sparse auditing delays authorization, whereas intensive auditing eventually increases workload. A separately specified BAF stress test further indicates that fallback thresholds must reflect candidate-specific evidence rather than a common fraction of the risk limit. These findings identify audit freshness and analyst capacity as joint design considerations for fraud decision support.

Most language-model access controls regulate behavior while leaving the same computation available to every request. We study a different systems question: can trusted authorization determine which newly trained parameters are reachable by the forward pass? Policy-Masked Private Experts freezes a pretrained sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model, trains a disjoint expert branch, and selects the public or private pool before top-k routing. The resulting claim is narrow but testable: under the declared trusted computing base (TCB), an unauthorized request executes no private expert. It does not imply that the public model lacks the same semantic capability. We test this separation between execution control and task utility in Qwen3-30B-A3B and DeepSeek-V2-Lite. Three Qwen BF16 seeds update all 32 private experts while the public fingerprint remains unchanged. Across 64 adversarial scenarios and 96 deny/fail-closed events, unauthorized private execution is zero; independent hooks exactly match 11,616 routed private rows and allow-deny-allow recovery is exact. On two prospectively frozen Qwen benchmarks, the private branch improves exact tool use by 5.0 percentage points (pp) (five versus zero discordances; one-sided Holm p = 0.03125, corresponding two-sided exact p = 0.0625) and 21.3 pp (percentile-bootstrap 95% CI [13.3, 29.3], Holm p = 0.000031). Three arm-blinded model evaluators retain a positive external effect of 18.7 pp (95% CI [9.3, 28.0]). A parameter-matched Lora has similar external utility, but a post-hoc request gate leaves 1,225 adapter calls under deny; the disjoint expert branch leaves none. DeepSeek reproduces the route invariant and gains 27.0 pp. A valid sealed evaluation is near-neutral. These results support auditable, reversible control over a trained parameter path, while showing that useful transfer remains distribution dependent.

Existing guidance identifies excessive agency, excessive permission, weak task-bound authorization, and inadequate agent controls as important risks. Control frameworks also describe capabilities for constraining, authorizing, observing, validating, and responding to agent activity. Yet security programs still need a way to manage persistent deployed instances that span components and outlive any one event. We propose the agentic posture vulnerability (APV) as a task-conditioned vulnerability-management abstraction: a durable record for a composed agent-control exposure. One posture may produce different runtime manifestations across tasks; APV links those manifestations to the invariant posture and remains open until authority is narrowed, a missing control is added, risk is accepted, or closure is verified. APV is not proposed as a new root-cause class of risk; it operationalizes existing excessive-agency, authorization, and control-composition weaknesses. We distinguish APVs from CVE-addressable product defects, OWASP Excessive Agency, Agent Baseline control outcomes, and the runtime authorization-execution gap. We then provide a field vignette, a thresholded definition, six recurring APV patterns, a vulnerability lifecycle, a minimum record, a control-and-closure matrix, tooling implications, and a testable research agenda.

Tool-using large language model agents frequently replan, retry failed operations, delegate tasks, and resume after crashes. These behaviors can cause one user authorization to be requested and executed multiple times under freshly issued token identifiers, even when each individual token is single-use. We call this failure semantic replay: exceeding the execution budget of a token-independent authorization instance rather than merely reusing an old token identifier. We show that identifier-local token consumption cannot prevent fresh reissuance unless the issuer retains monotonic durable state over the authorized action, confirmation event, and remaining execution budget. We introduce CapLease, an authorization-consumption layer that follows proposal- and authority-level defenses, binds an authenticated user confirmation to a canonical action, and enforces transactional Issue-Prepare-Commit transitions. Across LLM-agent replanning, retry, delegation, concurrency, confirmation-replay, and crash-recovery scenarios, identifier-local tokens permit fresh semantic reissuance, whereas CapLease and an equally stateful Server Ledger prevent duplicate admission and, with an idempotent sink, duplicate external effects. Our results identify durable authorization state, rather than token representation alone, as the systems requirement for replay-resistant agent execution.

Persistent memory allows (self-evolving) LLM agents to adapt across tasks by consolidating heterogeneous interaction histories into reusable facts, preferences, observations, and rules. Yet consolidation also imposes an implicit authorization boundary: it determines whether stored information may later be consumed as a user fact, an attested observation, or a standing instruction. We identify authority collapse, in which consolidation preserves a claim while erasing the source constraints governing its authorized use, causing the stored memory to imply greater authority than its source permits. We introduce AuthMem-Bench, a controlled paired benchmark that holds the focal claim and downstream task fixed while varying only source authority. It evaluates write-time collapse, downstream authorization errors, and automatic authority preservation. Across seven consolidators based on widely used agent-memory systems and seven LLM backbones, we observe authority collapse in 48 of 49 evaluated configurations. In a controlled action-grounded evaluation, collapsed memories without authority metadata yield a mean unauthorized-action rate of 50.3%. In an end-to-end evaluation, automatically predicted and persisted authority labels reduce the observed unauthorized-action rate from 16.9% to 0.0%, while benign task success remains essentially unchanged. These findings show that memory-driven adaptation must preserve not only what was learned, but also the authority under which it may be reused.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) decompose long-horizon tasks across supervisors and subagents, but delegated goals do not necessarily carry their original authorization boundaries. Existing safety benchmarks mainly study adversarial compromise, while work on constraint drift lacks controlled architecture-level evaluation. We introduce MasDrift, a benchmark of 600 benign productivity tasks across eight domains. Each task pairs required work with reserved actions. MasDrift compares single-agent, centralized, and decentralized coordination while varying hierarchy depth and peer width, measuring task completion and authorization preservation. Across generic multi-agent conditions, centralized hierarchies achieve 93.9--98.6% task completion versus 85.7--87.0% for peer networks, while unauthorized actions occur in 2.7--19.8% of tasks versus 0.6--0.8%, a gap that widens with hierarchy depth. We further compare two defenses that differ in where authorization evidence resides. One re-anchors every pending call to the original user request. The other carries an attenuated policy along the delegation chain. Re-anchoring reduces unauthorized actions in every model configuration we evaluate, at a cost of 1.6 points of pooled completion. Chain propagation blocks required work instead, forfeiting up to 36.3 points. A heterogeneous case study confirms that the failure follows from coordination rather than model strength. MasDrift exposes a centralization tradeoff and makes authorization preservation a measurable property of MAS design.

Tool-using LLM agents act on typed tool returns, records pairing provenance and categorical fields with numerical values. Runtime permission gates generally authorize the observed return and action, leaving the decision unprotected against small errors in how the return was bound to its source. We ask whether a candidate action stays authorized over a declared neighborhood of plausible correctly bound returns: one admissible binding fault plus bounded numerical drift. We prove that certifying the categorical and numerical channels separately does not compose: perturbations that are safe on each channel alone can jointly turn the same action unsafe. CAGE certifies this joint neighborhood directly, enumerating the discrete branches exactly and certifying the continuous perturbation within each branch. Across synthetic, policy-as-code, regulatory, and real-transaction settings, CAGE removes the in-budget false allows that accurate pointwise gates admit, while keeping a useful fraction of decisions autonomous. When the policy is executable, CAGE-Exact certifies the policy itself; otherwise CAGE-Lip and CAGE-RS certify a learned gate under an explicit, measured fidelity assumption.

Large language model (LLM) agents autonomously interleave semantic reasoning with complex system operations. In these dynamic environments, static tool-level permissions are fundamentally insufficient; safe authorization is highly context-dependent and heavily reliant on evolving runtime states and data flows. We present FAVA (Formal Authorization for Verified Agents), a permission-carrying authorization framework for agent execution. FAVA utilizes an LLM-guided Permission Intermediate Representation (IR) to translate ambiguous natural-language tasks into structured constraints. A deterministic lowering pass then converts this IR into an evidence-backed permission graph that explicitly tracks data flows, dependencies, and contextual labels. To provide strict security guarantees, a Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) authorizer mathematically verifies the current graph against security policies before any effectful action executes. A runtime gateway then enforces the solver's result, either authorizing the execution or intercepting it with a precise counterexample. We evaluate FAVA across OpenAgentSafety, OctoBench, and ActPlane scenarios. Our evaluation demonstrates that FAVA achieves a 90.5% Decision Compliance Rate (DCR) over the aggregate dataset, successfully intercepting dynamic violating traces in the evaluated trace-conditioned scenarios.

Tool-using agents expose structured calls but commonly attach free-form rationales. Such rationales are neither authorization nor reliable introspection. We present Explanation-Bound Tool Execution (EBTE), a claim-carrying mediation layer that converts decision-relevant rationale content into typed action claims and checks them against server-held intent, policy, payload, tool, risk, provenance, and freshness facts. EBTE cannot widen baseline authority: conflicts deny, incomplete or uncertain claims review, and only matching claims remain eligible for governed execution. We formalize this composition under explicit mediation and trusted-fact assumptions and implement a versioned reference profile with minimized audit packets. Across 136 authored conformance scenarios, the full profile matches all specified dispositions, admits none of 96 designated hard contradictions, and passes 232 metamorphic checks. A draft-only reference integration forwards none of 48 authored hard cases under EBTE while preserving all 16 soft-review and 4 aligned draft paths. In a frozen 2026-07-12 exploratory 224-attempt hosted-model record, the historical generation/runner agreement counts are 71/96, 66/96, and 19/32; a zero-call revalidation of the preserved minimized claims under the current pipeline yields 70/96, 65/96, and 17/32. In an AgentDojo-derived semantic check, existing high-risk controls make all 12 attack proposals non-allow, while EBTE resolves the task--proposal contradictions as deny. Together, these studies establish profile conformance and demonstrate the feasibility of server-checked action claims within the evaluated settings.

Long-lived AI agents increasingly evolve after deployment by retaining experience, acquiring skills and tools, revising workflows, delegating work, and moving across task phases. This improves adaptation but creates a distinct authorization problem. Tool-enabled agents can turn model errors and prompt injections into consequential external actions; when evolution occurs under a live grant, the subject exercising that authority or the context in which it acts may no longer match what the user evaluated. Evolution can change both the effects reachable under an old grant and the authority required by the task, which may rise, fall, or become incomparable. Existing tool policies constrain actions but do not determine when a grant survives this change. We formulate authorization continuity: when does an existing grant remain valid, how may active authority change, and what boundary must never move? Our state-bound model fixes a transition envelope and an immutable effect ceiling at grant time. The envelope determines whether the grant survives a mutation; below the ceiling, authority may contract freely and expand only under specified evidence conditions. We distinguish requested from realized effects and prove that, under complete mediation, sound effect abstraction, attenuating delegation, and monitor integrity, mutation cannot amplify protected effects beyond the user-issued ceiling. Agent-produced evidence may allocate authority below the ceiling but cannot raise it. Finally, we map six mutation classes to their authorization consequences.

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.

LLM agents increasingly rely on external tools, expanding capability while creating a new security boundary: third-party tools may appear benign at the interface level while embedding unsafe behavior in implementation. Existing defenses rely on weak metadata, collapse characterization and policy judgment into a single decision, or use heuristic/LLM enforcement that lacks deterministic, auditable reasoning over task context and multi-tool composition. This paper presents ToolGuardian, a policy-driven framework for securing agent-tool interactions through pre-admission vetting and task-aware runtime authorization. ToolGuardian uses progressive characterization to convert evidence into structured facts: descriptions capture declared intent, system-call traces expose coarse behavior, mock execution reveals observed effects, and source analysis identifies latent behavior. ToolGuardian's core contribution is an Answer Set Programming (ASP)-based declarative policy layer that reasons explicitly over capabilities, effects, task context, and composition. We compare ASP against heuristic and LLM-based policy realizations using identical inputs and output contracts. We evaluate ToolGuardian on 16 MCP-style tools, including 8 malicious variants derived from real open-source tools, and 20 runtime scenarios. For vetting, ASP reaches a deny-class F1 of 0.86 and 88% accuracy using description, syscall, and observed-effect evidence. For runtime authorization, fully specified realizations classify all scenarios correctly, while ablations show that removing compositional and conformance rules substantially degrades performance.

Autonomous AI agents increasingly execute actions, invoke tools, and operate on protected resources with limited human oversight. Existing authentication and authorization mechanisms establish identity and delegate authority, but do not inherently provide cryptographic evidence that a concrete request issued by a specific agent satisfies the applicable policy in a specific execution context. This paper hypothesizes that agent authorization can be formalized as a cryptographically verifiable relation, denoted $R_{CVA}$, that jointly binds an agent principal, a concrete authorization request, an execution context, and the satisfaction of an applicable policy, while selectively preserving the confidentiality of private authorization attributes. We introduce a preliminary formal abstraction for Cryptographically Verifiable Agent Authorization (CVA), define a compact set of candidate security properties including authorization soundness, principal binding, request binding, policy binding, and replay resistance, and provide an executable zero-knowledge proof of concept that instantiates selected elements of the model over a Groth16 zk-SNARK construction. We further identify and formalize the structural separation among identity binding, authorization-request binding, and runtime execution binding as a central open problem in the design of secure agentic systems (a distinction {not explicitly addressed by} current agentic security frameworks) and present a falsifiable research agenda for its resolution.

Agentic commerce extends agentic shopping into software agents that interpret policy, prepare checkout, generate transaction-facing language, and act under delegated payment authority. Protocols standardize external exchanges, but merchants still need one authoritative representation of commercial eligibility, actor authority, checkout validity, payment dispatch, generated claims, and evidence. This design-science study presents a protocol-agnostic architecture built around a canonical envelope, protected dependency and result hashes, Ed25519 or HMAC authentication, live-request rebinding, a seven-axis generated-claim gate, execution-time dependency revalidation, and eleven semantic invariants. Evaluation used an open-source JavaScript implementation, eight deterministic ecommerce scenarios, and five controlled ablations. Seven initially valid actions were permitted. After protected state changed, none could proceed without a fresh decision; a hostile-accessor case also remained blocked. Action status was consistent across configured surface-bound envelopes, and each scenario contained the three protected hashes and its targeted dependency reference. Each ablation produced the predicted unsafe regression when one safeguard was bypassed, while the protected path contained the same failure. The hostile accessor was read once, and the suite passed 66/66 tests, schema validation, and committed examples. Results support protected-dependency change detection, bounded outcome derivation, stale-decision prevention, surface-bound status consistency, refusal propagation, and verified-state identity under synthetic fixtures, but do not establish rule completeness, production security, performance, legal compliance, live interoperability, population error rates, or independent replication.

As AI agents gain prevalance, users are increasingly exposed to the risks such systems entail. Prompt injection attacks, as well as hallucination, can cause agents to leak private information to third parties. As autonomous systems, agents also present the more active danger of performing sensitive tasks, such as bank transactions, without the user's intent or authorization. Recognizing this challenge, the agentic security community has developed numerous proposals for secure agentic systems. Much of this work has focused on product-level approaches, where agentic system developers determine and apply the same security policies and permissions to all users. Yet different users have different needs and preferences, necessitating support for user-level permissions policies in agentic AI systems. To understand how user-level permissions are handled in AI agent systems, we survey 21 proposals for agent permissions systems. From this review, we construct a taxonomy of how different systems specify user-level permissions policies, both at the user interface and internally; derive internal policies from user input; and enforce those policies at run-time. We then analyze five prominent commercial agents and compare their permissions handling to agentic permissions systems in the literature. We identify several high-level themes across the literature and commerical agents, as well as multiple gaps where future work is needed.

Tool-using large language model (LLM) agents are attractive for network operations, but tickets, alerts, logs, runbooks, and ChatOps messages can carry indirect prompt injections. We present NetInjectBench, a 130-scenario benchmark that separates untrusted artifact text, trusted policy metadata, and evaluation labels for network-operation tool use. The sample contains 40 benign, 40 weak-attack, 40 strong-attack, and 10 approved high-impact change scenarios; each is evaluated with Qwen2.5-7B, Llama3.1-8B, and Mistral-7B. Across 240 attack instances, naive execution reached an 82.50% unsafe tool-action rate. Prompt-only safety, Self-Reminder, Spotlighting, and a Two-Pass LLM Judge reduced this rate to 25.63%, 21.67%, 18.33%, and 10.00%, respectively. Static allowlisting reached 5.00% but blocked all approved changes, yielding 0.00% usefulness and 100.00% overblocking on approved cases. Under the stated metadata-integrity assumption, the metadata-aware policy gate produced 0/240 unsafe attack actions, with a 95% Wilson upper bound of 1.58%, while preserving 99.17% attack-scenario usefulness and 100.00% approved-change usefulness. The findings show that network-operation agents need execution-time authorization boundaries alongside prompt-level instruction hygiene.

LLM agents can commit durable effects from authority evidence that was valid earlier in execution: a DOM snapshot, approval epoch, version witness, branch token, or worker result. We study the commit boundary at which earlier authority evidence no longer authorizes a durable effect. We call this property commit-time authorization: a durable effect is authorized only if the witness that licensed its derived state remains fresh, causally prior, bound to the same effect, and eligible at commit time. We build a controlled-invalidation suite spanning browser, tool/API, and multi-agent workflows. The suite preserves the user goal and payload shape while invalidating the authority relation before durability. In the primary 54-task matrix, endpoint success remains high: 262/270 runs reach the visible result. Only 55/270 are authorized completions; among the 216 invalidating rows, 207 commit after the authorizing path has failed. All 54 clean controls remain authorized, and a separate 54-run authority-preserving check produces no unauthorized commits. We then evaluate mitigation families. Prompt caution and single-condition checks are insufficient because different hazards break different boundary conditions. Defenses work when they refresh, rebind, replan, or refuse at the durability boundary. CommitGuard, a fail-closed boundary monitor, blocks stale durable-effect attempts on protected commit surfaces when runtimes emit witness, dependency, binding, and eligibility signals. The result is a reporting and runtime-design lesson: endpoint success is a utility metric; authorized commit is a security property.

Safety for generalist robots is usually discussed in terms of motion or dialogue. We argue a third question is missing: should the robot take its first hard-to-undo social action at all, such as a greeting, an uninvited grasp, or stepping into someone's space? We call this initiation authorization. Current frameworks rarely treat it as a separate safety layer. Today's stacks often skip this step: a high engagement score or a confident VLA rollout is treated as permission to act. But seeing a person is not the same as having their consent to be addressed. We frame initiation authorization within generalist-robot safety and contrast it with post-plan VLA guardrails, implementing PAS (probe-authorize-speak) on a doorway humanoid, comparing it with direct-init on logged traces, and proposing a three-condition user study, with open questions on metrics, governance, and where initiation ends and foundation-model generation begins.

AI agents issue tool calls on the basis of text they cannot verify, so any party who controls part of the context can forge the appearance of authority. I evaluate 15 contemporary language models against eight attack scenarios derived from a published corpus of real agent incidents and find that refusal varies from 100% down to 38% across fully evaluated models; the most expensive model refused only half of the attacks despite a twentyfold price spread. I present aiAuthZ, an authorization gateway that moves the safety decision off the agent's host. Before a tool call executes, the gateway verifies caller identity with a per-message HMAC-SHA256 signature bound to a single-use nonce and a timestamp window, and it evaluates a role-based and argument-level policy that the agent can neither read nor modify. Every decision joins a SHA-256 hash-chained audit log, and each accepted message yields an HMAC-authenticated QR receipt that achieves 94% mean verification across eight transmission channels, with zero forgeries accepted in 25 wrong-key trials. With the gateway in place, residual attack success falls to 0% for all 15 models at no more than 0.03 ms of added decision latency. On the AgentDojo banking suite, aiAuthZ blocks all seven attacker-directed tool calls the evaluated agents emit, at the cost of one legitimate first-time payment, while a spotlighting baseline allows two injections to succeed. Across nine in-scope case studies from the same incident corpus, aiAuthZ blocks nine of nine, against four of nine for a policy baseline without identity binding. The gateway does not prevent a model from being deceived; it prevents a deceived model from acting beyond the verified user's authority on every call routed through it. The implementation and all experiments are released at https://github.com/Sports-Vision-Inc/aiAuthZ.

Large Language Models are increasingly used to turn natural-language requirements into code. In access control, that shortcut is dangerous: a generated policy can compile and read correctly while granting access that no one approved. The difficulty is not only writing policy code. It is fixing what the requirements mean before code is written, and then checking that the final policy actually satisfies that intent. We present AutoCedar, a verifier-guided system that first turns natural-language access-control requirements into a reviewed, checkable target, and then synthesizes Cedar policies against that target. AutoCedar decomposes schema and policy authoring into small intent atoms: reviewable claims about vocabulary and behavior. Once those atoms pass mechanical validation and human intent review, the model proposes a candidate policy, the verifier checks it against the approved target, and each failure is turned into a repair signal that tells the model whether to broaden, narrow, or restructure the policy without changing the target. Because the model's work is split into small problems, each grounded in reviewed intent and backed by verifier feedback, end-to-end policy authoring becomes tractable. AutoCedar converges on all 221 tasks of CedarBench, our benchmark of authorization tasks paired with executable semantic boundaries. Across three requirements-corpus case studies covering healthcare, education, and conference management, AutoCedar converts noisy prose and extracted access-control fragments into reviewed schemas, formal checks, and a globally verified Cedar policy store for each scenario.

Least privilege, the principle that an identity should hold only the permissions strictly required for its task, has been a foundational primitive of access control for decades. We argue that this principle is insufficient for agentic AI systems, which do not merely hold permissions but can combine, approve, and amplify them across workflows and system boundaries. We propose least autonomy as an appropriate generalization and develop a formal theory. First, we define a compositional blast radius d(a,b) that measures structural separation between actions in an enterprise hierarchy, combining an ultrametric tree with lattice-valued confidentiality, integrity, and control-context labels. Second, we define a directed agent influence graph G(theta). An arc from U to V requires a directed shared-resource write-to-read meeting or a conservative undirected agent-to-agent (A2A) communication meeting, and a meeting-conditioned influence potential at or above an externally selected policy threshold theta. A catalogue-radius profile supports calibration and audit of theta. Finally, we define a collusion predicate over graph reachability that detects authorization composition, decision manipulation, and cross-domain capability composition.

AI agents that autonomously execute tool calls on a user's behalf raise pressing questions about permission management: what role could users play, and what role should they play? Despite many proposed approaches, the user's role in agentic permission management remains under explored. We introduce Janus, a playground system for implementing and evaluating user-involved agentic permission management designs. Janus consists of two components: Janus-Core, a modular agentic system supporting a diverse spectrum of permission management designs, and Janus-Harness, an automated evaluation framework. Grounded in a conceptual model that identifies key design axes for user involvement, we implement six permission assistants spanning the design space and evaluate them across three scenarios and three synthetic responders. We demonstrate that user input is critical and can significantly strengthen privacy and security, that AI augmentation of user decisions can help reduce cognitive load, and that realistic user behavior including permission fatigue must be accounted for in system design. No single design performs optimally across all contexts, motivating a more principled and context-sensitive approach to deploying permission assistants in agentic systems. Janus is publicly available to support future investigation into this dimension of agentic system design.

Tool-using LLM agents increasingly read untrusted content while holding side-effecting tools such as payments, email, CRM, and infrastructure APIs, yet common framework defaults still conflate tool exposure with authorization. We audit whether LangChain/LangGraph, LlamaIndex, and the Stripe Agent Toolkit re-authorize each model-emitted call, with concrete argument values, before execution. Across pinned public-source commits, all three provide capability gating by default, but none provides a deterministic fail-closed per-call value authorization gate by default. We introduce ScopeGate, a five-stage PDP/PEP for agent tool calls: scope, authorization, money ceiling, idempotency, and default deny. Evaluation shows the identical unauthorized payout call executes under LangChain's default dispatch (with a companion LlamaIndex PoC) but is denied by ScopeGate; the tested control reports 0/48 static bypasses, 0/29 unauthorized attempts (40-iteration adaptive run), 0/10 benign false-denies, and Latam-GPT payment-agent containment at 10/10. ASR denotes attempted unauthorized action, containment is not a cure, deployment-tier claims are inference over measured model classes, and no CVE is asserted.

AI agents are granted access to tools, APIs, and other infrastructure, making them active principals in those systems. The dominant approach places controls inside the agent's own runtime: system prompts, output filters, and guardrail libraries. Any control in the agent's address space is reachable by inputs that influence it; this generalizes to any AI system with sufficient reach into its own runtime, a class we term escapable AI systems. We identify four properties that an authorization mechanism must satisfy for architectural control rather than for cooperative requests: process separation, pre-action enforcement on a structurally only path, fail-closed at both the request and system levels, and externalized signed evidence verifiable outside the controlled system's trust boundary. We position this layer as execution-time AI alignment, complementing training-time alignment (RLHF, Constitutional AI) and inference-time alignment. We present the Unfireable Safety Kernel, a Rust reference implementation realizing all four. Its fail-closed invariant is machine-checked at two levels: an SMT theorem (Z3) and an exhaustive bounded-model-checking proof of the production decision function (Kani, 4/4 harnesses). A Python-to-Rust migration was gated on byte-equivalence (1000/1000 fixtures; 17/17 adversarial classes). We evaluate the kernel governing a live, escapable AI system, a deterministic, self-improving world model, against an escape-seeking adversary driving its real self-modification seam: across 1,000 self-modifications, all 704 attempts on the safety-critical core are refused, with no escape; a further 300, under the operator kill switch, are also refused. A separate campaign of 6,240 authorization round-trips had no successful bypass. Against 3 contemporary systems claiming the agent control plane, the agent invokes control; here, it lacks that choice.

AI agents increasingly act through external tools: they read private data, construct structured payloads, submit write requests, export records, and coordinate workflows across application boundaries. Existing authorization mechanisms usually ask whether an integration credential, app, or token can call a tool. That question is necessary but incomplete. A tool call can be authorized by static credentials and still be unjustified by the user's current request. For example, a credential that can read and export records should not expose export authority when the user only asked for a bounded summary, and a model-generated delete call should not execute merely because the integration has a delete scope. This paper proposes Intent-Governed Access Control (IGAC), a server-side authorization layer that treats the user's expressed intent as a monotone, auditable policy attribute for AI-agent tool use. IGAC introduces intent certificates, session-scoped policy narrowing, intent-aware manifest filtering, and intent-tool-payload consistency checks. The central invariant is that user intent may only reduce the authority granted by static integration policy; it never expands scopes, data policy, tenant boundaries, or review requirements. We map IGAC onto OpenPort, an existing governance substrate that already implements authorization-dependent discovery, scope and ABAC-style policy checks, draft-first writes, preflight impact binding, state-witness checks, idempotency, stable reason codes, and audit.

As autonomous LLM agents increasingly hold real credentials and operate infrastructure without a human in the loop, operators have no standard way to tell an agent that a resource is off-limits. Access controls either let the agent in (it has valid credentials) or hard-fail it (indistinguishable from any other client). We propose a third mode: a lightweight, published in-band deny signal -- the Recuse Signal -- that a server emits over a protocol's existing channels (an SSH banner, a PostgreSQL NOTICE) asking a connecting automated agent to voluntarily withdraw. This is a cooperative governance control, the robots.txt analogue for live access; it is explicitly not a security boundary. Its value is entirely empirical and, to our knowledge, unmeasured: do compliant LLM agents actually honor such a signal? We define the signal as an open mini-standard, implement three zero- or low-footprint adapters (an SSH banner/PAM hook, a PostgreSQL wire-protocol proxy, and a Kubernetes admission webhook), deploy them on a live production host, and run a controlled experiment in which fresh agents are given a benign operations task and observed for recusal. In a pilot (SSH; OpenAI GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini; and Claude Code as a deployed agent), the signal cleanly induces recusal -- 100% recusal when present versus 100% task completion in a no-signal control -- and, revealingly, behaves as a cooperative rather than absolute signal: an explicit operator-authorization framing flips the most capable model to proceed, while other agents continue to defer to the on-host policy. We release the standard, adapters, and experiment harness for reproduction.

As AI systems evolve from passive models into autonomous active agents capable of initiating actions, collaborating, and delegating tasks, the traditional boundaries of software systems blur. Traditional authorization and delegation frameworks, built around fixed principals, explicit requests, and static scopes, are insufficient to govern agentic systems. Agentic AI demands richer authorization semantics: agents must inherit and delegate permissions, act under time-limited authority, and coordinate through shared protocols. Existing Identity and Access Management (IAM) systems fail to fully capture this notion of agency, lacking mechanisms for recursive delegation, contextual boundaries, and dynamic scoping as executable governance primitives. Unlike access delegation standards such as OAuth 2.0, we treat delegation as a contractual term rather than merely a static token-based consent credential. This paper proposes a compositional governance framework that introduces primitives indispensable for agentic AI. We define types of delegation and their permissions and accountability implications, and we introduce a notion of resource scope attenuation to bound agentic access envelopes. These concepts are expressed as general relational definitions that can be composed into existing authorization domains (e.g., financial systems). To operationalize this composition, we define a compositional operator that overlays new agentic semantics, such as recursive delegation chains, onto existing relational policies without rewriting them. We substantiate this framework through formal proofs and empirical evaluation, showing that it provides a formal yet practical foundation for accountable authorization in agentic AI systems.

Physical AI systems increasingly map multimodal observations, language instructions, and learned world representations into physically consequential actions. Robotics foundation models, vision-language-action models, and world-model-based autonomous systems can condition decisions that move vehicles, robots, drones, and industrial machines. This transition exposes a safety problem that is not fully captured by conventional AI content moderation or by classical robot safety alone: a black-box model may issue a physically consequential action while appearing confident, plausible, and semantically aligned. The resulting failure can be silent, arising from sensor drift, occlusion, state-estimation error, distribution shift, hallucinated affordances, or invalid physical assumptions before downstream hardware controllers detect a violation. Across embodied foundation models, world models, robotics simulation, embodied safety benchmarks, safe control, runtime assurance, uncertainty estimation, verification, and guardrail evaluation, model capability and safety mechanisms have advanced along largely separate technical tracks. A recurring gap synthesized here is that no single stream surveyed in this review supplies a complete runtime authorization boundary between black-box Physical AI models and physical execution. The resulting analysis develops a bounded problem formulation, a definition of silent physical-action failure, a taxonomy of runtime guardrail functions, and evaluation requirements for comparing guardrails as Physical AI assurance mechanisms.

Current safety alignment of foundation models largely follows a \emph{one-size-fits-all} paradigm, applying the same refusal policy across users and contexts. As a result, models may refuse requests that are unsafe for general users but legitimate for authorized professionals, limiting helpfulness in specialized professional settings. Existing approaches either require costly realignment or rely on inference-time steering that suffers from imprecise control and added latency. To this end, we propose \textsc{Palette}, a modular, controllable, and efficient framework that selectively relaxes refusal behavior on authorized target domains while preserving standard safety elsewhere. Our method identifies a refusal direction via multi-objective search and internalizes it into the model through lightweight adaptation. \textsc{Palette} further supports modular composition: it learns domain-specific safety controls independently and composes them through parameter merging, enabling on-demand multi-domain authorization without retraining. Experiments across four safety benchmarks, multiple model variants, and both LLMs and VLMs show that \textsc{Palette} delivers precise safety control without sacrificing general utility, offering a practical path toward foundation models that adapt to diverse professional needs.

Coding agents now run autonomously with shell, file, and network privileges. When a user issues a benign request, the agent sometimes does more than asked: it deletes unrelated files, wipes a stale credentials backup, or rewrites configuration the user never mentioned. We call these scope expansions overeager actions, an authorization problem distinct from capability failures, prompt injection, or sandbox escapes. We present OverEager-Gen, a benchmark dedicated to overeager behavior on benign tasks. Building it surfaces a measurement-validity issue: if a benchmark spells out the authorized scope inside the prompt, the agent stops inferring boundaries and starts pattern-matching declaration text. On Claude Code, stripping the consent declaration alone raises the overeager rate from 0.0% to 17.1% on paired scenarios (McNemar exact p = 2.4 x 10^-4). OverEager-Gen therefore certifies each scenario's discriminative power before admission via a behavioral-gradient validator, audits internal tool calls through a dual-channel stack (PATH-injected shim plus per-agent event streams), and ships byte-identical consent_kept and consent_stripped variants. OverEager-Bench contains 500 validated scenarios and ~7,500 runs across four agent products (Claude Code, OpenHands, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI) and six base models; a 50-sample re-annotation gives Cohen's kappa = 0.73 and rule-judge recall = 1.00. Stripping consent multiplies the overeager rate on every shared base model (Delta in [11.9, 17.2] pp). The framework axis dominates effect size: a permissive cluster (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI) runs at 5.4-27.7% while the ask-to-continue framework (OpenHands) sits at 0.2-4.5% (Fisher p <= 10^-5). Within-framework base-model variance reaches 15.9 pp, indicating that model-layer alignment does not fully propagate through permissive permission gating.

As coding agents gain access to shells, repositories, and user files, least-privilege authorization becomes a prerequisite for safe deployment: an agent should receive enough authority to complete the task, without unnecessary authority that exposes sensitive surfaces. To study whether current models can infer this boundary themselves, we first introduce permission-boundary inference, where a model maps a task instruction and terminal environment to a file-level read/write/execute policy, and AuthBench, a benchmark of 120 realistic terminal tasks with human-reviewed permission labels and executable validators for utility and attack outcomes. AuthBench shows that authorization is not a simple conservative-versus-permissive calibration problem: frontier models often omit permissions required by the execution chain while also granting unused or sensitive accesses. Increasing inference-time reasoning does not resolve this mismatch. Instead, each model moves toward a model-specific authorization attractor: more reasoning makes it more consistent in its own failure mode, whether broad-but-exposed or tight-but-brittle. This suggests that direct policy generation is the bottleneck, because a single generation must both discover all necessary accesses and reject all unnecessary ones. We therefore propose Sufficiency-Tightness Decomposition, which first generates a coverage-oriented policy by forward-simulating the task and then audits each granted entry for grounding and sensitivity. Across tested models, this decomposition improves sensitive-task success by up to 15.8% on tightness-biased models while reducing attack success across all evaluated models.

Modern cloud and enterprise systems rely on identity-centric authorization, assuming that callers possessing valid credentials are safe to execute commands. The emergence of autonomous AI agents invalidates this assumption: agents can generate syntactically valid but semantically unsafe actions, making standing privileges a significant operational risk. This risk becomes especially acute in sovereign AI systems, where autonomous agents may interact with cloud infrastructure, regulated data, financial workflows, and national-scale digital services. Governed mutation substrates reduce this risk by interposing on agent actions: agents submit intents, infrastructure evaluates context and policy, and execution is mediated. However, this shifts the trust boundary: how can the decision to authorize an intent be made verifiable, distributed, and replayable? We introduce a Distributed Trust Framework (DTF), a verification framework for governed mutation systems that computes execution authority from structured, verifiable artifacts. DTF introduces a Justification Proof to encode the admissibility basis of an action, a consensus model for independent evaluation, an ephemeral Execution Identity derived from the approved proof, and an append-only Evidence Chain that preserves the authorization lifecycle. Under stated substrate assumptions, this architecture enforces a compact authorization invariant: no high-stakes execution without a proof object, no derived authority without consensus, and no valid mutation detached from evidence. We define the model, instantiate it over an OpenKedge-based governed mutation substrate, and show how it maps onto cloud-native environments. By shifting authorization from standing identity to proof-derived authority, DTF provides an infrastructure foundation for making agentic execution governable, auditable, and bounded in sovereign AI deployments.

Enterprise AI is shifting from copilots to autonomous agents capable of executing workflows, negotiating outcomes, and making decisions with limited human oversight. As these systems extend across organizational boundaries, identity alone is insufficient: an agent's authority must also be explicit, constrained, auditable, revocable, and consistently interpretable by independent receivers. This paper analyzes representative enterprise use cases in insurance claims processing and supply chain integrity to surface structural gaps in existing identity and access models. It proposes a portable authorization model for autonomous agents based on issuer-authored authorization payloads, typed constraint algebra, decision-consistent evaluation semantics, delegation attenuation, governed semantic resolution, fail-closed processing, and pre-flight discovery. The model separates credential containers, authorization payload semantics, and enforcement engines, allowing profiles such as JWT/JWS, Verifiable Credentials, OAuth Rich Authorization Requests, or policy-engine bindings to preserve a common authorization meaning across trust boundaries.

As Model Context Protocol adoption grows, securing tool invocations via meaningful user consent has become a critical challenge, as existing methods, broad always allow toggles or opaque LLM-based decisions, fail to account for dangerous call arguments and often lead to consent fatigue. In this work, we present Conleash, a client-side middleware that enforces boundary-scoped authorization by utilizing a risk lattice to auto-permit safe calls within known boundaries while escalating risks, a policy engine for user-defined invariants, and a refinement loop that converts user decisions into reusable rules. Evaluated on 984 real-world traces, Conleash achieved 98.2% accuracy, caught 99.4% of escalations, and added only 8.2 ms of overhead for policy verification; furthermore, in a user study where N=16, participants significantly preferred Conleash scoped permissions over traditional methods, citing higher trust and reduced prompting.

This position paper argues that the Authorization-Execution Gap (AEG) is a major safety and security problem in open-world agents. The AEG is the divergence between what a principal intends to authorize and what an open-world agent ultimately executes. Because such agents act autonomously across tools, persistent state, and multi-agent handoffs, even small instances of authorization divergence can cause harm that is difficult or impossible to undo. We argue that many observed agent failures can be traced to three structural sources of AEG: delegation-level incompleteness, channel-level corruption, and composition-level fragmentation. The same observed failure may arise from any of these sources. Without identifying the source, a defense targeting the symptom alone cannot address the underlying cause. Agent safety and security should therefore emphasize source-oriented diagnosis and defense. Because the structural sources of AEG arise dynamically during execution, this approach necessarily requires authorization integrity checks applied during execution, rather than relying solely on one-shot upfront filtering or post-hoc audit. For NeurIPS, the implication is that papers on open-world agents should report not only outcome-level metrics such as task success or attack resistance, but also process-level evidence showing where AEG was detected, constrained, and attributed to a structural source during execution.

Enterprise AI backends increasingly admit heterogeneous execution requests across model deployment, inference, evaluation, data movement, and agentic workflows. In many systems, those requests arrive in service-specific shapes, which makes it difficult to attach shared admission-time behavior such as logging, governance hints, resource accounting, authorization-aware policy hooks, and later runtime review without rebuilding the same contract in each subsystem. This paper introduces the execution envelope, a normalized internal admission object that records who is asking for what kind of execution, what resources were requested, what policy-relevant scope accompanied the request, and what the backend ultimately granted. The proposal is intentionally narrow. It does not replace service-specific request models, perform scheduling, or introduce a new authority token. Instead, it defines a descriptive admission seam that can be threaded through real backend paths before backend-specific resolution begins. I formalize the distinction between requested and granted resources, specify the field families, invariants, and lifecycle of the envelope, work through POST /serving/deploy_model as an initial proving ground, and position the design relative to usage control, analyzable authorization, admission control, and cluster scheduling. The central claim is that a shared execution-admission contract is a useful missing primitive for modern AI backends because it creates one place to attach governance and observability without pretending to solve placement, policy, and runtime execution in a single step.

The security discussion around agentic AI focuses heavily on prompt injection. This paper argues that multi-agent systems also create a distinct authorization problem: maintaining authorization invariants as non-human principals retrieve data, delegate tasks, and synthesize results across changing boundaries. We call this problem authorization propagation. It is not reducible to prompt injection and is not fully addressed by classical access-control models such as RBAC, ABAC, or ReBAC. The paper formalizes authorization propagation as a workflow-level property, identifies three sub-problems (transitive delegation, aggregation inference, and temporal validity), and derives seven structural requirements for authorization architectures in multi-agent AI systems. Recent work on invocation-bound capability tokens, task-scoped authorization envelopes, dependency-graph policy enforcement, and execution-count revocation demonstrates that the field is converging on the problem, but not yet on a complete architecture. The central claim is that identity governance must be treated as infrastructure: evaluated continuously, enforced at every interaction boundary, and designed into the system before orchestration logic is allowed to scale. Preliminary implementation evidence from a production enterprise AI platform shows that ordinary system behavior, not only adversarial action, already produces the failures this model predicts.

Authorizing Large Language Model (LLM)-driven agents to dynamically invoke tools and access protected resources introduces significant security risks, and the risks grow dramatically as agents engage in multi-turn conversations and scale toward distributed collaboration. A compromised or malicious agentic application can tamper with tool calls, falsify results, or request permissions beyond the scope of the subject's intended tasks, which could go unnoticed with current delegated authorization flows given their lack of visibility into the original subject's intent. In light of this, we make the following contributions towards Continuous Agent Semantic Authorization (CASA). First, we propose a hybrid runtime enforcement model that combines deterministic and semantic controls enabled by a zero-trust interception layer. Five deterministic controls enforce structural and data-integrity guarantees over the message flow, while a semantic inspection layer evaluates whether tool call choices align with the intended tasks commissioned to the agent. Second, differently from prior Task-Based Access Control (TBAC) techniques that operate on single-turn interactions, we decompose the semantic layer into two stages: i) a task-extraction step that distills the subject's objectives from multi-turn conversations at the interception layer, and ii) a task-tool semantic matching step at the authorization server that evaluates whether the requested tools are appropriate for the extracted tasks. Third, we extend the ASTRA dataset that we introduced in a prior work, by generating novel conversation-tool datasets with multi-turn interactions containing relevant and irrelevant tool calls for a given task. Lastly, we provide the first experimental results for TBAC under multi-turn conversations.

Recent evidence suggests that frontier AI systems can exhibit agentic misalignment, generating and executing harmful actions derived from internally constructed goals, even without explicit user requests. Existing mitigation methods, such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and constitutional prompting, operate primarily at the model level and provide only probabilistic safety guarantees. We propose the Policy-Execution-Authorization (PEA) architecture, a "separation-of-powers" design that enforces safety at the system level. PEA decouples intent generation, authorization, and execution into independent, isolated layers connected via cryptographically constrained capability tokens. We present five core contributions: (C1) an Intent Verification Layer (IVL) for ensuring capability-intent consistency; (C2) Intent Lineage Tracking (ILT), which binds all executable intents to the originating user request via cryptographic anchors; (C3) Goal Drift Detection, which rejects semantically divergent intents below a configurable threshold; (C4) an Output Semantic Gate (OSG) that detects implicit coercion using a structured $K \times I \times P$ threat calculus (Knowledge, Influence, Policy); and (C5) a formal verification framework proving that goal integrity is maintained even under adversarial model compromise. By shifting agent alignment from a behavioral property to a structurally enforced system constraint, PEA provides a robust foundation for the governance of autonomous agents.

Large language models are increasingly used to mediate everyday interpersonal dilemmas, yet how their advisory defaults interact with the concentrated moral orders of specific communities remains poorly understood. This article compares four assistant-style LLMs with community-endorsed advice on 11,565 posts from r/relationship_advice, using the subreddit as a concentrated, vote-ratified moral formation whose prescriptive clarity makes divergence measurable. Across models, LLMs identify many of the same dynamics as human commenters, but are markedly less likely to convert that recognition into directive authorization for action. The gap is sharpest where community consensus is strongest: on high-consensus posts involving abuse or safety threats, models recommend exit at roughly half the human rate while maintaining elevated levels of hedging, validation, and therapeutic framing. The article describes this pattern as recognition without authorization: the capacity to register harm while withholding socially ratified permission for consequential action. This divergence is not incidental but structural: a portable advisory style that remains validating, risk-averse, and weakly directive across contexts. Safety alignment is one plausible contributor to this pattern, alongside training-data averaging and broader assistant design. The article argues that model divergence can be reframed from a technical error to a way of seeing what standardized assistant norms flatten when they encounter situated moral worlds.

Automated red-teaming methods for large language models typically optimize attack prompts within a fixed, human-designed strategy, leaving the attack strategy itself unchanged. We instead optimize the strategy. We propose AutoRISE, a method that searches over executable attack programs rather than individual prompts. At each iteration, a coding agent edits a strategy and a fixed evaluation harness scores the resulting attacks, returning both a scalar objective and per-example diagnostics that guide subsequent edits. This allows structural changes, including new attack components and altered control flow, that prompt-level methods do not directly express. We also release two benchmark suites developed on disjoint target sets and evaluate on 11 models from five families against seven established jailbreak datasets. Across held-out models, AutoRISE improves average attack success rate by 17.0 points over the strongest baseline, and improves attack success by up to 16 points on frontier targets with low baseline success rates. Ablations against parametric and strategy-library baselines suggest that these gains arise from unrestricted program search, particularly compositional techniques and control-flow edits. AutoRISE operates in a black-box, inference-only setting, requiring no fine-tuning, human annotation, or GPU compute.

Current AI agent frameworks have made remarkable progress in automating individual tasks, yet all existing systems serve a single user. Human productivity rests on the social and organizational relationships through which people coordinate, negotiate, and delegate. When agents move beyond performing tasks for one person to representing that person in collaboration with others, the infrastructure for cross-user agent collaboration is entirely absent, let alone the governance mechanisms needed to secure it. We argue that the next frontier for AI agents lies not in stronger individual capability, but in the digitization of human collaborative relationships. To this end, we propose a human-symbiotic agent paradigm. Each user owns a permanently bound agent system that collaborates on the owner's behalf, forming a network whose nodes are humans rather than agents. This paradigm rests on three governance primitives. A layered identity architecture separates a Manager Agent from multiple context-specific Identity Agents; the Manager Agent holds global knowledge but is architecturally isolated from external communication. Scoped authorization enforces per-identity access control and escalates boundary violations to the owner. Action-level accountability logs every operation against its owner's identity and authorization, ensuring full auditability. We instantiate this paradigm in ClawNet, an identity-governed agent collaboration framework that enforces identity binding and authorization verification through a central orchestrator, enabling multiple users to collaborate securely through their respective agents.

Modern AI agents routinely depend on secrets such as API keys and SSH credentials, yet the dominant deployment model still exposes those secrets directly to the agent process through environment variables, local files, or forwarding sockets. This design fails against prompt injection, tool misuse, and model-controlled exfiltration because the agent can both use and reveal the same bearer credential. We present CapSeal, a capability-sealed secret mediation architecture that replaces direct secret access with constrained invocations through a local trusted broker. CapSeal combines capability issuance, schema-constrained HTTP execution, broker-executed SSH actions, anti-replay session binding, policy evaluation, and tamper-evident audit trails. We describe a Rust prototype integrated with an MCP-facing adapter, formulate conditional security goals for non-disclosure, constrained use, replay resistance, and auditability, and define an evaluation plan spanning prompt injection, tool misuse, and SSH abuse. The resulting system reframes secret handling for agentic systems from handing the model a key to granting the model a narrowly scoped, non-exportable action capability.

LLM agents operating under organizational policies must comply with authorization constraints typically specified in natural language. In practice, such specifications inevitably contain ambiguities and logical or semantic gaps that cause the agent's behavior to systematically diverge from the true requirements. We ask: by letting an agent evolve its policy understanding through interaction and corrective feedback from pre-deployment testing, can it autonomously refine its interpretation to close specification gaps? We propose PolicyBank, a memory mechanism that maintains structured, tool-level policy insights and iteratively refines them -- unlike existing memory mechanisms that treat the policy as immutable ground truth, reinforcing "compliant but wrong" behaviors. We also contribute a systematic testbed by extending a popular tool-calling benchmark with controlled policy gaps that isolate alignment failures from execution failures. While existing memory mechanisms achieve near-zero success on policy-gap scenarios, PolicyBank closes up to 82% of the gap toward a human oracle.