Kernel-Resident Tool Governance Gateway

The compiler must read modules a physics-based solver cannot build without; the coding agent must not read that intellectual property. The harness does not ship that rule. We classified fifteen read routes against a container, permission rules and a sandbox. None of the three can tell which program is reading.

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.

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

Advances in advanced artificial intelligence tools have sparked research in robot autonomy, but the development of such systems has largely focused on execution rather than verifying the feasibility actions planning models propose. Like general-purpose LLMs, robotics planning models carry risks: biased toward user-specified goals, they may suggest actions misaligned with scientific ethics, they may be unsafe due to an inability to "remember" prior safety risks, or they may be vulnerable to adversarial attacks on the autonomy ecosystem. We propose a LLM-driven verification layer between planning and execution to evaluate action permissibility. Our LLM-as-a-Judge ensemble combines chain-of-thought reasoning across models and synthesizes those expert judge outputs, mirroring a combination of a mixture of experts and self-consistency approach. This layer serves as middleware, gating plans from the server's planning module before they reach the MCP server and therefore the robot's low-level controls: plans are approved, rejected for reformulation, or escalated for human review. With this system, we achieve near 85% precision across accept/escalate/reject categories 97% containment of adversarial attacks, with negligible errors between accepting and rejecting tasks, and errors mostly manifesting at the escalate boundary.

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

Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in everyday software, making its integration into mobile apps inevitable. However, AI mobile app developers are not always versed in security and privacy best practices, leaving users to monitor their own security and understand how apps use their data. App reviews capture real user experiences, helping others make informed decisions before downloading. This paper presents a machine learning model for classifying AI app reviews into permission-related categories. Because user reviews are unstructured, assembling a conventional labeled training set is difficult. To address this, AI-generated security and permission reviews are used to identify relevant training examples from a large corpus of human-written reviews, eliminating the need for manual annotation. The proposed approach classified permission reviews with an accuracy of 82%. Analysis shows that users organise their concerns by sentiment toward the requesting app rather than specific permission types, with implications for users, developers, and platform administrators.

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.

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

Tool-using LLM agents can violate the very policies they are deployed to enforce while appearing to complete the task successfully. In policy-permissive environments, a tool may execute any well-formed call even when the corresponding state transition is forbidden by domain policy. The result is a silent wrong state (a booking cancelled, a passenger count changed, a claim acted on without verification) that neither the tool nor the agent's self-report exposes. We study this failure mode in the $τ^2$-bench airline domain. On a budget agent, 78% of observed failures are silent wrong-state failures with no tool error, and the aggregate failure rate is reproducible across disjoint seeds, not sampling noise. We then evaluate a lightweight intervention: deterministic, read-only pre-execution gates that inspect the proposed call and current state before allowing a write. A four-gate suite raises full-benchmark success from 29.6% to 42.0% on gpt-4o-mini (+12.4pp; paired task-level bootstrap P=0.0012), and the lift reproduces on a disjoint 15-seed set (+12.3pp; P=0.0008). The effect is concentrated where the gates fire: on the 26/50 firing tasks, success rises by +19.2pp, while movement on the 24 non-firing tasks does not exclude zero. Two negative controls (a self-enforcing retail domain and BFCL) bound the mechanism: gates help when tools are policy-permissive and add little where tools already self-enforce. As suggestive evidence, not a central claim, the same failure mode persists at the frontier: gpt-5.2 at default reasoning still attempts policy-violating writes, and the same suite improves success from 61.2% to 71.6% (+10.4pp; P=0.020; n=5, no replication). The contribution is a bounded evaluation and reliability result: deterministic gates do not guarantee task success, but they can deterministically prevent a known class of silent policy-violating writes at the action boundary.

LLM coding harnesses grant agents broad file and shell access, yet the configuration layer that steers them -- rules files, agent definitions, IDE-specific markdown -- is largely unmanaged. A prevalence study of 10,008 public GitHub repositories (n=6,145 agent config files) finds that agent configurations propagate as undeclared shared components: 10.1% of tracked paths are SHA-256 exact duplicates across independent repositories (fork-adjusted, threshold-independent), with 75.5% of clone pairs crossing organisational boundaries. Two further patterns are indicative: configurations are rarely revised (58% single-commit; 0.4 vs 0.6 commits/month age-normalised against CI/CD workflows), and rarely declare permission boundaries (<1% of agent configs vs 33% of Actions workflows, n=31 true positives). We propose a deterministic control plane above the harness that maps one-to-one to these gaps. Rel(AI)Build treats agent definitions as a managed supply chain (SHA-256 content addressing, HMAC-stamped lockfiles, hash-chained audit logs); enforces tiered permissions and attack-derived blocklists before LLM invocation; gates feature work through a phase state machine with requirement-to-file-to-test traceability; compiles a single canonical definition to seven IDE targets; and detects prompt drift via Jaccard similarity. Conformance tests on injected violations confirm each mechanism enforces its stated invariant; developer outcomes remain future work. Governance of this layer must be deterministic and tool-agnostic -- not delegated to further LLM orchestration.

Coding agents often receive broad tool access for an entire task, even when a resource is needed only for one subgoal. We call this gap lingering authority: a temporary resource/effect capability remains exposed after the episode that justified it has closed. PORTICO is a reference monitor for revocable capabilities exposed to the planner. It compiles an explicit task contract into initial capabilities, grant rules, trusted closure predicates, and global deny rules. A request-grant-invoke lifecycle materializes expansions as opaque, epoch-bound handles. Closure removes those handles from the next planner interface and rejects stale replay before side effects. The monitor assumes mediated tools and a sound typed catalog. In controlled coding-agent tasks, PORTICO records no executed contract-forbidden effects in the evaluated runs, while controlled grants recover boundary work blocked by a fixed narrow envelope. A non-revoking comparator receives the same initial envelope and the same grants at the same turns. On the closure slice, both systems match task success, scope compliance, and all pre-closure decisions; PORTICO then rejects 10/10 post-closure reuses, while the comparator permits 10/10. A deterministic stale-write audit records 0/6 versus 6/6 executed forbidden effects. Scripted traces and six live model traces over file writes, git mutation, and network egress show the same split. In a four-episode same-policy diagnostic, broad request exposure preserves zero executed forbidden effects but raises blocked proposals from 67 to 84. Frozen real-repository runs, with commits and traces recorded, exercise the same lifecycle on real project layouts.

The increasing deployment of large language model (LLM) agents in collaborative workflows demands robust multi-user, multi-principal interaction mechanisms capable of enforcing access permissions, resolving authoritative conflicts, and preventing unauthorized data disclosure. However, a fundamental mismatch exists between the single-user training paradigm of contemporary LLMs and the hard constraints required for multi-principal governance, rendering probabilistic, prompt-based safeguards vulnerable under multi-turn adversarial interactions.Our key insight is that governance constraints -- who is authorized, what is restricted, and whose instructions take precedence -- are deterministic runtime variables that should be enforced by execution hooks rather than entrusted to the LLM. We present \textbf{Harness-MU}, the first model-agnostic, zero-tuning infrastructure framework for multi-user LLM agents. By decoupling language generation from safety orchestration, Harness-MU guarantees unbreakable permission boundaries while maximizing compliant demand satisfaction. Across four frontier open-weight and proprietary models on the \textit{Muses-Bench} benchmark, Harness-MU achieves the goal of privacy preservation across all access-control attacks, outperforming the standard baseline by 0.28--0.39 in utility score and improving instruction-following accuracy by up to 48.9 percentage points. Harness-MU advances the philosophy of \textit{Harness Engineering}, establishing that systematic infrastructure is essential for solving LLM multi-principal governance challenges. The code and data are available at https://github.com/YuanJrShiuan/Harness-MulUser.

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.

This work revisits standard policy gradient methods used on restricted policy classes, which are known to get stuck in suboptimal critical points. We identify an important cause for this phenomenon to be that the policy gradient is itself fundamentally myopic, i.e. it only improves the policy based on the one-step $Q$-function. In this work, we propose a generalized $k$-step policy gradient method that couples the randomness within a $k$-step time window and can escape the myopic local optima in MDPs with restricted policy classes. We show this new method is theoretically guaranteed to converge to a solution that is exponentially close in performance to the optimal deterministic policy with respect to $k$. Further, we show projected gradient descent and mirror descent with this $k$-step policy gradient can achieve this exponential guarantee in $O(\frac{1}{T})$ iterations, despite only assuming smoothness and differentiability of the value function. This will provide near optimal solutions to previously elusive applications like state aggregation and partially observable cooperative multi-agent settings. Moreover, our bounds avoid the ubiquitous distribution mismatch factors $||d_μ^{π^*} / d_μ^π||_\infty$ and $||d_μ^{π^*} / μ||_\infty$ enabling the $k$-step policy gradient method to escape suboptimal critical points that emerge from poor exploration in fully observable settings.

Shielding is a prominent model-based technique to ensure safety of autonomous agents. Classical shielding aims to ensure that nothing bad ever happens and comes with strong guarantees about safety and maximal permissiveness. However, shielding systems for probabilistic safety, where something bad is allowed to happen with an acceptable probability, has proven to be more intricate. This paper presents a formal framework that conservatively extends classical shields to probabilistic safety. In this framework, we (i) demonstrate the impossibility of preserving the strong guarantees on safety and permissiveness, (ii) provide natural shields with weaker guarantees, and (iii) introduce offline and online shield constructions ensuring strong safety guarantees. The empirical evaluation highlights the practical advantages of the new shields, as well as their computational feasibility.

Safe fine-tuning defenses are often endorsed on the basis of a held-out gap reduction, but the same reduction can come from sampling noise, subject artifacts, capability loss, or a mechanism that does not transfer. We introduce Acceptance Cards: an evaluation protocol, a documentation object, an executable audit package, and a claim-specific evidential standard for safe fine-tuning defense claims. The protocol checks statistical reliability, fresh semantic generalization, mechanism alignment, and cross-task transfer before treating a gap reduction as a full-card pass. Re-scored under this installed-gap protocol, SafeLoRA fails the full-card pass on Gemma-2-2B-it: under strict mechanism-class coding it fails all four diagnostics, and under a permissive shrinkage relabel it still fails three of four. This is a narrow installed-gap audit on one model family, not a global judgment of SafeLoRA's effectiveness. In a 46-cell audit, no cell satisfies the strict conjunction. The closest family is a near miss that passes reliability and mechanism checks where the required data are available, but fails the fresh-subject threshold, lacks a strict transfer pass, and carries a measurable deployment-accuracy cost.

Agent systems often decompose a task across multiple roles, but these roles are typically specified by prompts rather than enforced by access controls. Without enforcement, a team pass rate can mask whether agents actually coordinated or whether one role effectively did another role's work. We present TeamBench, a benchmark with 851 task templates and 931 seeded instances for evaluating agent coordination under operating system-enforced role separation. TeamBench separates specification access, workspace editing, and final certification across Planner, Executor, and Verifier roles, so that no role can read the full requirements, modify the workspace, and certify the final answer. Prompt-only and sandbox-enforced teams reach statistically indistinguishable pass rates, but prompt-only runs produce 3.6 times more cases where the verifier attempts to edit the executor's code. Verifiers approve 49% of submissions that fail the deterministic grader, and removing the verifier improves mean partial score in the ablation. Team value is also conditional. Teams benefit when single agents struggle, but hurt when single agents already perform well. A 40-session human study under the same role separation shows that our benchmark exposes interaction patterns that pass rate misses. Solo participants work through the task directly, human participants paired with agents often collapse into quick approval, and human teams spend more effort coordinating missing information across roles.

AI agents increasingly call external tools (file system, network, APIs) through the Model Context Protocol (MCP). These tool calls are the agent's syscalls: privileged operations with side effects on shared state, yet today's safety enforcement lives entirely in userspace, where a 10-line script can bypass it. I propose Governed MCP, a kernel-resident tool governance gateway built on a logit-based safety primitive (ProbeLogits). The gateway interposes on every MCP tool call in a 6-layer pipeline: schema validation, trust tier, rate limit, adversarial pre-filter, a ProbeLogits semantic gate (the load-bearing check), and constitutional policy match, with a Blake3-hashed audit chain. I implement Governed MCP in Anima OS, a bare-metal x86-64 kernel in ~286,000 lines of Rust. The five non-inference layers plus the audit append cost a measured 11.3 us per call; the ProbeLogits gate (one probe-prompt prefill plus a single logit read) costs 332-556 ms per classification across Qwen2.5-7B, Llama-3-8B, and Mistral-7B, 2.4-3.4x faster than a Llama Guard 3 pass on the same hardware. A silicon-measured ablation shows that removing the ProbeLogits layer collapses F1 from 0.789 to 0.357 (delta-F1 = -0.432): hand-rule firewalling alone is insufficient. Every WASM-to-system host function and every registered MCP tool is mediated by the kernel gateway, so the 10-line userspace bypass that defeats existing guardrail libraries is structurally impossible; a disclosed set of ring-3 syscall paths remains ungated pending future work. Multi-model validation across three architectures (HarmBench 98-99% non-copyright block, XSTest 98.5-100% unsafe recall, ToxicChat parity with Llama Guard 3) shows the underlying primitive is architecture-agnostic. Governed MCP demonstrates that tool-call governance is feasible as an OS primitive, not just an application-layer concern.

The current state-of-the-art backdoor attacks against Reinforcement Learning (RL) rely upon unrealistically permissive access models, that assume the attacker can read (or even write) the victim's policy parameters, observations, or rewards. In this work, we question whether such a strong assumption is required to launch backdoor attacks against RL. To answer this question, we propose the \underline{S}upply-\underline{C}h\underline{a}in \underline{B}ackdoor (SCAB) attack, which targets a common RL workflow: training agents using external agents that are provided separately or embedded within the environment. In contrast to prior works, our attack only relies on legitimate interactions of the RL agent with the supplied agents. Despite this limited access model, by poisoning a mere $3\%$ of training experiences, our attack can successfully activate over $90\%$ of triggered actions, reducing the average episodic return by $80\%$ for the victim. Our novel attack demonstrates that RL attacks are likely to become a reality under untrusted RL training supply-chains.

We present an optimization-based framework for robust permissive synthesis for Interval Markov Decision Processes (IMDPs). While robust IMDP controller synthesis typically yields a single policy and most permissive-synthesis methods assume exact transition models, we synthesize multi-strategies that retain multiple actions while guaranteeing satisfaction of probabilistic reachability or expected-reward specifications under all admissible transition probabilities. We formulate the problem as a mixed-integer linear program (MILP) that maximizes the number of enabled state--action pairs subject to robust Bellman constraints. We develop two encodings: a direct vertex-enumeration formulation and a dualization-based formulation that avoids explicit enumeration of uncertainty-polytope vertices and has size linear in the number of successor transitions. Experiments on four benchmark domains show that both encodings achieve the same optimal permissiveness and scale to IMDPs with hundreds of thousands of states. Compared with standard robust single-policy synthesis, the resulting multi-strategies retain substantially more action choices.

Attention identifies items relevant to a current query, but does not separately determine whether their value contributions support the prediction. We propose Warrant, a unified method for locating and controlling metric-facing attention contributions. Warrant identifies and exposes the item-wise contribution path that reaches the reported metric, then applies current-query-conditioned permission on that same path. Full Warrant improves the primary metric in 27 of 32 model-dataset comparisons across CTDG, MTPP, RAG, STPP, and TKG. Exact item-removal analysis in five representative settings finds near-zero correlation between attention and marginal prediction utility; even the highest-attention item reduces target utility in 43.5-54.4% of examples. Decomposition over the complete benchmark shows that the contributions of path exposure and learned permission vary by task. In a five-seed HotpotQA analysis, the opened path assigns more attention mass to distractors than to gold evidence, whereas learned permission preserves gold contributions, suppresses distractor contributions, and recovers evidence ranking in four of five seeds. These results show why attention-selected contributions must be localized and authorized again on the metric-facing path.