Computer-Use Agent Safety

The safety of LLM-based agents currently rests on alignment training and safety classifiers, neither of which can rule out that a sophisticated indirect prompt injection (IPI) goes through and causes significant harm. Recent work therefore builds agents with information-flow guarantees that rely on structured tool interfaces to interact with the environment. Computer Use Agents (CUAs) act visually on the computer screen, which does not provide a boundary between trusted first-party interfaces and untrusted, potentially attacker-authored content. Actions are equally ambiguous: a click may land on an application toolbar or a button controlled by an attacker. Treating the user as the source of trust and confirming each sensitive decision produces confirmation fatigue, with the risk of missing harmful actions. We introduce SA-CUA, a dual-LLM framework that generates a reliable trust boundary for CUAs by deriving conservative deterministic rules from the accessibility tree for unmasking trusted regions from the privileged LLM's screenshot, keeping trusted and untrusted content separated. Human interaction is only required for proper task specification in the beginning. During the task a robust endorsement channel allows values to pass from the untrusted to the trusted domain by verifying information via trusted channels. This allows the agent to autonomously handle tasks involving untrusted information. SA-CUA maintains much higher utility than CaMeL-CUA while keeping the attack success rate at zero.

AI agents built on large language models (LLMs) run shell commands, read and write files, and reach the network, typically with their user's privileges. However, what an agent does during an execution is difficult to understand: tests assert on the result, and the agent's trajectory records only what the agent reports about itself, which may omit behavior executed by its subprocesses. We present AgentSpy, an approach that observes an agent from outside the agent. AgentSpy runs the agent in an isolated environment, configured by a declarative specification, and records the system calls and network traffic of the agent and of every process it executes. Based on this monitoring, AgentSpy supports two families of analyses: conformance analyses, which measure obligations, i.e., what an agent execution should do, and safety analyses, which check prohibitions, i.e., what an agent execution must never do. We instantiate one analysis of each family. The reliability analysis uses rules to summarize each run by the environment resources the agent uses: the commands it executed, the files it accessed, and the hosts it contacted. The security analysis applies deterministic rules to the system calls of an execution. For reliability, we evaluated AgentSpy on 77 tasks with the codex harness and three recent LLMs, executing each task three times. Sets of repeated runs of the same task are more similar than sets that include runs of another task in 92.2% of the comparisons. Among tasks for which all three runs pass outcome-based tests, the agent performs task-unrelated activities in 18% of the cases, reads the grading files in 7%, and does not use the developers' guidance in 17%. For security, the generic rules of AgentSpy detect four of five attack categories we considered, with no false positives across 50 runs.

Computer-use agents (CUAs), while capable of completing computer tasks in everyday and professional workflows, can cause unintended harm even under benign instructions and environments. However, detecting such harm remains challenging. First, it requires careful, task-specific reasoning: verifiers guided only by general safety criteria often overlook many important but subtle harmful behaviors. Second, it requires active investigation: past trajectory screenshots show what the agent did but not always what actually changed in the environment, so LLM-as-a-judge verifiers that rely on screenshots alone may be unable to determine the actual consequences of actions. To address these challenges, we introduce SCOUT, a two-stage agentic safety verifier that synergizes reasoning-intensive rubric generation with tool-intensive evidence gathering. First, our SCOUT rubric generator extensively reasons over the task and the agent's trajectory to determine what successful and safe execution should entail, generating task-specific completion and safety rubrics. Then, our SCOUT probing agent follows these rubrics to interact with the post-execution environment and collect grounded evidence for final safety and completion judgments. We evaluate our framework on two computer-use safety benchmarks. On AutoElicit-Bench, SCOUT achieves 75.4 unsafe F1 and 74.5 completion F1, outperforming LLM-as-a-judge verifiers and naive tool-use verifiers. SCOUT leads on OS-Blind with 76.4% unsafe detection accuracy. Test-time reflection reduces final unsafe execution rates from 30.2% to 17.2% on AutoElicit-Bench. Ablations and analysis show that tool-free rubric generation in SCOUT elicits substantially more reasoning and is crucial for safety detection across verifier backbones, especially non-frontier ones. A preliminary extension to coding tasks shows that SCOUT can support safety verification beyond computer-use.

Computer-use agents increasingly interact with browsers, terminals, file systems, and external services, introducing safety risks that emerge through runtime behavior rather than generated content alone. Existing guard models target static prompts and responses and are poorly suited to agent execution; existing executable safety platforms produce evaluation verdicts rather than the normalized supervision a guard model needs to learn across heterogeneous agent frameworks. We introduce HazardAuditor, an execution-grounded framework that closes both gaps. Its infrastructure runs heterogeneous agents (Claude Code, Codex, Hermes, and OpenClaw) in controlled environments and normalizes their interactions into a canonical event representation for cross-framework supervision. We further observe that token-level post-training objectives create a structural mismatch for generative guards, causing longer rationales to dominate gradient updates. Guard Policy Optimization (GuardPO) addresses this by converting deterministic safety outcomes into sequence-level advantages and normalizing rationale and verdict regions, making the safety decision the effective unit of optimization. Across multiple benchmarks and heterogeneous computer-use systems, HazardAuditor improves accuracy by up to 16.5 percentage points over the strongest prior guard. Code, models, and evaluation artifacts will be available at https://yunhao-feng.github.io/HazardAuditor/.

Computer-use agents (CUAs) have made rapid progress in completing complex tasks through graphical user interfaces, yet post-training centered on task success alone does not induce reliable safety behavior. A reliable CUA must condition its execution on risk: it should complete ordinary benign tasks, avoid environmental hazards and continue when a safe completion path remains, and refuse when the goal is harmful or no safe path exists. To learn this conditional policy, we develop Safety and Capability Optimization for Policy Execution (SCOPE), which jointly post-trains a CUA for task-execution capability and safety-aware decision making. To provide aligned training data for this joint objective, we further introduce SCOPE-Gen, an automated pipeline that synthesizes verifiable capability tasks and converts them into paired environment-risk variants while preserving their original goals. Using the resulting tasks, we construct SATraj-OS, a trajectory dataset comprising capability demonstrations, safe continuations, and explicit refusals. SCOPE first learns from all three trajectory types through supervised fine-tuning and then further improves task completion through online reinforcement learning. Starting from Qwen3.5-9B, SCOPE-RL achieves a 54.17% task success rate on OSWorld and a 64.30% attack-avoidance rate on OS-BLIND, yielding the best aggregate capability--safety score of 58.80% among the evaluated agents. Ablations reveal asymmetric but complementary roles for the two forms of safety supervision: refusal trajectories account for most of the attack-avoidance gain, whereas risk-handling trajectories preserve greater task utility at comparable attack-avoidance levels.

Computer Use Agents (CUAs) are increasingly deployed to navigate mobile and desktop applications on behalf of users, yet no benchmark comprehensively evaluates whether they can safely interact with visual interfaces while handling ambiguous instructions. We introduce ADeptS-Bench, a dual-stream trustworthiness benchmark, grounded in the ADEPTS capability framework and general population user studies. The Safety stream provides paired benign/malicious tasks with threats embedded in the visual interface. The Disambiguation stream evaluates whether agents seek clarification when intent is ambiguous. Evaluating seven models reveals that no model consistently exceeds 80% task success while staying below 30% attack success; every model clicks "Checkout" on a $25K order without hesitation, and none detects that a "factory reset" button is mislabeled as "Optimize." An ablation reveals three distinct safety architectures: tool-dependent (ASR +21-23pp without refusal tool), partially tool-dependent (+10-11pp), and no mechanism (unchanged). In disambiguation, all models overestimate consequence severity, mirroring the over-refusal bias observed in safety. We release all data, evaluation code, and analysis tools upon publication.

A safety rule and an episodic log compete for the same tokens in an AI agent's context. When the budget overflows, both are summarized at the same rate; only the rule needs exact wording to remain enforceable. On 20 production agent configurations, Claude Code's /compact prompt on Sonnet 4.6 preserves 53% of safety rules after one compaction round and 10% after five. We name this the Compaction Cliff. We address it with Knowledge Triage, a framework that classifies each line of an agent's knowledge base by type and routes each type through its own retention policy. Three deterministic operators implement this triage across the three context-management operations: TypeCompact rewrites items in place under per-type fidelity, TypeDecompose partitions a topic too large to compact safely, replicating in-scope safety rules across partitions, and TypeRetrieve fetches items from external storage with in-scope rules pinned ahead of relevance. On five public corpora, TypeCompact preserves 2--4$\times$ more safety rules than the strongest single-shot LLM compactor at every ratio, with 96% recall over five rounds. TypeDecompose reaches 0% locality violations against 93% under uniform partitioning. TypeRetrieve reaches 100% recall@50 against 73% for the best single-shot LLM retriever. On three downstream behavioral benchmarks, we outperform the production Sonnet compactor on medical compliance (paired McNemar $p < 10^{-8}$ on preservation, $N = 200$), the full-policy and hierarchical baselines on retail task pass rate ($p < 0.01$, $N = 115$), and the hierarchical compaction on the airline domain ($p = 0.024$). We release AgentArtifactCorpus (396{,}934 agent configurations from 54{,}628 public GitHub repositories), the classifier, and the reference implementation.

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

Computer-use agents (CUAs) now act on a user's behalf across personal applications such as email, calendars, and to-do lists. This cross-application access is useful, but it also creates a privacy risk that has been largely overlooked: when an agent works in one context, it can pull in information from another that is inappropriate in that context. Hence, we introduce AgentCIBench, an evaluation harness that turns this risk into executable, deterministically scored scenarios. We target three common failure modes in CUAs: visual co-location, where the agent pulls in prohibited items that sit next to the task target in the UI; task-ambiguity overshare, where the agent dumps dense personal state in response to an under-specified prompt; and recipient misalignment, where the agent sends content to an addressee for whom it is inappropriate. We evaluate 15 frontier agents and find a surprisingly high failure rate: 11 of 15 leak on more than 50% of scenarios, with an average leakage of 67.9%, and the same failures persist when agents act end-to-end in the environment to complete the task. We release AgentCIBench to encourage the development of safer computer-use agents and position contextual disclosure testing as a pre-deployment safety check.

Computer-use agents can complete benign user instructions while violating important constraints of the user's environment. We introduce OSGuard, a dual-granularity benchmark suite for evaluating safety through local, pre-execution guardrail decisions and end-to-end task execution. Its action-level benchmark contains 324 human-annotated examples in which guardrails classify candidate actions as allowed, unrelated, or unsafe given the original instruction and current interface state. Its risk-augmented execution suite contains 45 tasks derived from 40 OSWorld tasks, keeping original instructions unchanged while modifying the environment to introduce state-dependent safety constraints and preserve a safe path to completion. Augmented evaluators retain the original task-success criteria and add explicit state-based safety checks, distinguishing safe completion from nominal success that violates these constraints. On the action-level benchmark, the strongest evaluated guardrail reaches 79.9% accuracy and 0.80 macro-F1, but performance drops substantially on actions from risk-augmented executions. In full-task evaluation, an unguarded agent completes 62.2% of tasks safely while 37.8% result in unsafe completion; adding the strongest guardrail reduces unsafe completion to 33.3% while leaving safe success unchanged. These results show that state-dependent safety constraints remain challenging both to recognize locally and to preserve during end-to-end computer use.

Computer-use agents could automate repetitive screen-based clinical work, but their reliability in medical graphical user interfaces remains largely unvalidated. Existing benchmarks focus on general web or desktop tasks and underrepresent medical software, which requires domain knowledge, exhibits markedly different UI design from mainstream applications, lacks public testing environments, and demands safety validation beyond task completion. We introduce MedCUA-Bench, an interactive benchmark for clinical computer-use agents. It covers 18 clinical scenarios across 10 medical domains, reconstructed from real product manuals and open-source medical systems to capture authentic clinical interfaces while avoiding licensing and privacy constraints. Each task ships with paired intent- and step-level goals to disentangle clinical reasoning from UI execution, and is evaluated by a deterministic checker over task completion and five clinical safety dimensions. Across 23 agents, the best closed-source model reaches 54.2% strict success, while all models remain below 9% on the real OpenEMR. Open-source agents average only 2.5%, with the best reaching 16.2%. MedCUA-Bench exposes the gap between current agents and reliable clinical software use, providing a reproducible testbed for future research.

Computer-use agents extend language models from text generation to sustained interaction with files, terminals, browsers, and external tools. This shift creates safety risks that are difficult to detect from isolated prompts or final responses, because harm often emerges only through multi-step execution traces whose individual actions appear locally benign. We introduce BraveGuard, a self-evolving defense framework for training guard models from open-world threat signals and realistic agent trajectories. BraveGuard mines recent research sources to identify emerging risks and attack patterns, instantiates them as executable computer-use tasks, collects agent rollouts, and derives trajectory-level supervision for guard model training. As new threats and validation failures appear, the pipeline can be repeated, yielding an adaptive defense loop rather than a static, benchmark-driven training process. We instantiate BraveGuard by training multiple guard backbones, including Qwen3-Guard and Llama-Guard variants, and evaluate the resulting guards on trajectory-level agent-safety benchmarks. BraveGuard consistently improves safety detection across computer-use trajectories. On AgentHazard, it substantially improves detection accuracy over off-the-shelf guard models, with accuracy increasing from 38.79% to 82.38% under the averaged guard-model setting. These results show that guard supervision grounded in open-world threat discovery and realistic agent execution can improve safety monitoring beyond fixed taxonomies and synthetic prompt-level data. BraveGuard offers a scalable path toward adaptive defenses for computer-use agents facing evolving real-world risks.

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 LM agents gain the ability to execute actions on real computer systems, we need ways to not only prevent harmful actions at scale but also effectively remediate harm when prevention fails. We formalize a solution to this neglected challenge in post-execution safeguards as harm recovery: the problem of optimally steering an agent from a harmful state back to a safe one in alignment with human preferences. We ground preference-aligned recovery through a formative user study that identifies valued recovery dimensions and produces a natural language rubric. Our dataset of 1,130 pairwise judgments reveals context-dependent shifts in attribute importance, such as preferences for pragmatic, targeted strategies over comprehensive long-term approaches. We operationalize these learned insights in a reward model, re-ranking multiple candidate recovery plans generated by an agent scaffold at test time. To evaluate recovery capabilities systematically, we introduce BackBench, a benchmark of 50 computer-use tasks that test an agent's ability to recover from harmful states. Human evaluation shows our reward model scaffold yields higher-quality recovery trajectories than base agents and rubric-based scaffolds. Together, these contributions lay the foundation for a new class of agent safety methods -- ones that confront harm not only by preventing it, but by navigating its aftermath with alignment and intent.

Computer-use agents (CUAs) can now autonomously complete complex tasks in real digital environments, but when misled, they can also be used to automate harmful actions programmatically. Existing safety evaluations largely target explicit threats such as misuse and prompt injection, but overlook a subtle yet critical setting where user instructions are entirely benign and harm arises from the task context or execution outcome. We introduce OS-BLIND, a benchmark that evaluates CUAs under unintended attack conditions, comprising 300 human-crafted tasks across 12 categories, 8 applications, and 2 threat clusters: environment-embedded threats and agent-initiated harms. Our evaluation on frontier models and agentic frameworks reveals that most CUAs exceed 90% attack success rate (ASR), and even the safety-aligned Claude 4.5 Sonnet reaches 73.0% ASR. More interestingly, this vulnerability becomes even more severe, with ASR rising from 73.0% to 92.7% when Claude 4.5 Sonnet is deployed in multi-agent systems. Our analysis further shows that existing safety defenses provide limited protection when user instructions are benign. Safety alignment primarily activates within the first few steps and rarely re-engages during subsequent execution. In multi-agent systems, decomposed subtasks obscure the harmful intent from the model, causing safety-aligned models to fail. We will release our OS-BLIND to encourage the broader research community to further investigate and address these safety challenges.

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

Personalized computer-use agents are rapidly moving from expert communities into mainstream use. Unlike conventional chatbots, these systems can install skills, invoke tools, access private resources, and modify local environments on users' behalf. Yet users often do not know what authority they have delegated, what the agent actually did during task execution, or whether the system has been safely removed afterward. We investigate this gap as a combined problem of risk understanding and post-hoc auditability, using OpenClaw as a motivating case. We first build a multi-source corpus of the OpenClaw ecosystem, including incidents, advisories, malicious-skill reports, news coverage, tutorials, and social-media narratives. We then conduct an interview study to examine how users and practitioners understand skills, autonomy, privilege, persistence, and uninstallation. Our findings suggest that participants often recognized these systems as risky in the abstract, but lacked concrete mental models of what skills can do, what resources agents can access, and what changes may remain after execution or removal. Motivated by these findings, we propose AgentTrace, a traceability framework and prototype interface for visualizing agent actions, touched resources, permission history, provenance, and persistent side effects. A scenario-based evaluation suggests that traceability-oriented interfaces can improve understanding of agent behavior, support anomaly detection, and foster more calibrated trust.

Agentic computing systems, while immensely capable, raise serious security, privacy, and safety concerns. A key issue is that the full set of functionalities offered by these systems, combined with their probabilistic execution flows, is not known beforehand. Given this lack of characterization, it is challenging to validate whether a system has successfully carried out the user's intended task or instead executed irrelevant actions, potentially as a consequence of compromise. We present Agent Sentry, a runtime defense that learns a bound on an agent's benign execution from prior legitimate executions and flags any action that falls outside this bound. Agent Sentry layers three complementary checks: a structural classifier over the sequence of actions and the provenance of each function's arguments; a deterministic allowlist check over sensitive argument values; and an LLM judge, invoked only on the residual of actions where the first two checks cannot safely decide between a legitimate new request and a carefully crafted injection. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Agent Sentry in AgentDojo and AgentDyn by blocking 94.3% of successful injections while allowing 95.1% of benign executions, without modifying the agent, its tools, or the LLM.

Computer-using agents (CUAs) act directly on graphical user interfaces, yet their perception of the screen is often unreliable. Existing work largely treats these failures as performance limitations, asking whether an action succeeds, rather than whether the agent is acting on the correct object at all. We argue that this is fundamentally a security problem. We formalize the visual confused deputy: a failure mode in which an agent authorizes an action based on a misperceived screen state, due to grounding errors, adversarial screenshot manipulation, or time-of-check-to-time-of-use (TOCTOU) races. This gap is practically exploitable: even simple screen-level manipulations can redirect routine clicks into privileged actions while remaining indistinguishable from ordinary agent mistakes. To mitigate this threat, we propose the first guardrail that operates outside the agent's perceptual loop. Our method, dual-channel contrastive classification, independently evaluates (1) the visual click target and (2) the agent's reasoning about the action against deployment-specific knowledge bases, and blocks execution if either channel indicates risk. The key insight is that these two channels capture complementary failure modes: visual evidence detects target-level mismatches, while textual reasoning reveals dangerous intent behind visually innocuous controls. Across controlled attacks, real GUI screenshots, and agent traces, the combined guardrail consistently outperforms either channel alone. Our results suggest that CUA safety requires not only better action generation, but independent verification of what the agent believes it is clicking and why. Materials are provided\footnote{Model, benchmark, and code: https://github.com/vllm-project/semantic-router}.

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