LLM Agent Security

Many agent runtimes give the agent a tool for editing its own configuration. Some of that configuration grants abilities, such as enabling a tool. Other parts set the agent's limits: which directories it may write to, who may send it messages, which network address it listens on, how callers authenticate, and the gate that blocks risky writes. If the agent can edit those limits, a single ordinary request can widen them. We study this in a deployed, model-agnostic runtime. We propose a rule: the agent may change fields that grant abilities, and may never change fields that set its limits. We enforce the rule as a containment floor inside the configuration tool and measure what happens with and without it. Without the floor, a frontier model wrote a protected value on 25 of 72 ordinary requests that gave it permission to change settings, often when the request never named the field. Prohibitions written in the system prompt failed in a predictable way. A prompt that listed the protected field names stopped every request that used those names (0 of 36 saved, against 17 of 36 with no prompt) and did not stop the requests that only described the goal (10 of 36 saved, against 8 of 36). A prompt that described the forbidden effects did the reverse. With the floor, 0 of 167 protected writes were saved, although the models attempted a protected write in 65 of those cases. A search for other routes through the tool found only one, a pinned shell, which the floor's scope statement already excludes. The study covers two models and a single agent. We state what that does and does not support.

Localizing where an LLM-based agent first fails to uphold security during a repair can show which stage of its workflow needs an additional safeguard. This is difficult for silent failures, which are patches that pass syntactic and functional checks but still contain a security vulnerability. Because such patches give no observable failure signal, existing failure attribution methods, which rely on observed task failures and labelled failure steps, are less suited to them. We propose Security Awareness Gap Evaluation (SAGE), a trace-based method that combines an assessment of the security reasoning recorded at each turn with the reconstructed code history to identify the earliest turn at which a repair diverges from the task's security intent. We evaluate SAGE on 95 confirmed silent failures drawn from 3,684 repair traces produced by six agent frameworks and six base models on SecurityEval and CVEfixes. SAGE assigned an origin in 93 cases. Most origins were an unaddressed security requirement or an inadequate defence choice, and only five coincided with the code change itself. When the agent introduced the vulnerable code, the origin preceded the write in 14 of 19 cases. Repeated scoring and a second judge reproduced the origin type more consistently than the exact turn, and agreement was lowest for traces that kept only the final file.

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.

Agent skills package task-specific knowledge and procedures that can be composed to support complex agent tasks, while public marketplaces provide a growing pool of reusable skills. Existing security vetting, however, largely evaluates skills in isolation, leaving composition-induced risks underexplored. Such risks arise because composing benign skills expands the agent's capability space, enabling behaviors unavailable to any skill alone. Interestingly, we find that directly composing benign skills can already induce malicious behaviors, even when every individual skill passes security vetting. We further find that some target malicious behaviors remain difficult to realize through direct composition, even when the selected skills collectively provide the required capabilities. To systematically instantiate these attacks, we present Compositional Risk Induction via Multi skill Execution (CRIME). CRIME first uses the Malicious Plot Casting (MPC) module to decompose a target malicious behavior into complementary requirements and identify suitable benign skill compositions from public skill repositories. For compositions that cannot directly realize the target behavior, the Runaway Reaction Steering (RRS) module uses execution feedback to iteratively refine the selected skills toward the target while requiring each skill to remain benign under standalone vetting. The resulting composition is then passed to the Skill Reaction Chamber (SRC) module, where the skill pair is executed in a sandbox and the resulting environmental consequences are examined to determine whether the target behavior has occurred. Unsuccessful cases are returned to RRS for further refinement. Furthermore, we construct a benchmark of 4,000 public skills across eight cybersecurity behaviors for systematic evaluation of composition-induced vulnerabilities.

With the increasing capabilities of Large-Language-Models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents, users are increasingly using them to solve everyday problems, such as answering e-mails or providing programming support. Existing work has extensively investigated security and privacy risks, such as prompt injections and the disclosure of sensitive data to chatbot providers. While various solutions were developed to address these risks, including input structuring to prevent prompt injections or deploying local LLMs to avoid sharing confidential data with chatbot operators, LLMs also pose the risk of leaking confidential data to third parties. In this paper, we demonstrate with LLMLeak a novel attack vector where malicious software that runs locally but cannot communicate directly with the internet abuses LLMs to establish a covert channel. While inputs that instruct the LLM to send data directly via generated code are easy to detect and network libraries are typically restricted, LLMLeak relies only on the LLM's tool to fetch websites for further information. A malicious software component on the client side embeds a secret into a URL. It presents the referenced website as providing information required for a benign task, such as migrating a software library. When the LLM accesses the URL, the attacker receives the encoded secret through an attacker-controlled DNS or web server. We perform an extensive evaluation on eleven open-parameter models, observe an attack success rate of 79.7%, and also conduct a case study on real-world chatbots, demonstrating the relevance of LLMLeak.

LLM agents use skills to improve performance on specialized tasks. To complete a user request, an agent may invoke several skills in sequence, allowing information produced under one skill to guide the next. Because skills may come from open-source repositories, this handoff can also carry attacker-controlled claims into later decisions. In this paper, we introduce APEX, which constructs and refines adversarial skill chains tailored to a user task and an attacker-selected action. The key insight is that an agent-written record of genuine task progress can carry a false claim of user approval across skills: an upstream skill induces the agent to create the record, and a downstream skill uses it to direct the attacker-selected action. Across four targeted-action families and six models on SkillsBench, the chains induce the selected action in 512 of 690 attempts (74.2%). On GPT-5.4, the full chain succeeds in 84.3% of attempts, compared with 17.4% when the workflow is merged into one skill. We further evaluate a prompting defense that asks the agent to check skill-produced files against the original request. On GPT-5.4, it lowers targeted-action success from 84.3% to 59.1%, while the verifier test-pass rate across 72 benign native-skill tasks falls from 86.7% to 56.3%. These results highlight the need for defenses that prevent attacker-directed actions while preserving legitimate task performance.

Tool-using large language model (LLM) agents turn generated text into real side effects, so poisoned tool metadata, retrieved pages, memory, and reusable skills can steer the next call. Vetting an artifact before admission does not settle this. A safe variant and a leaking variant can produce the same admission evidence, and a sound gate then cannot relax that site for either. We make that condition precise, which leaves the last boundary a deployment can still act on. We present Provenance-Aware Capability Enforcement (PACE), which mediates every tool call immediately before it executes. Path confinement proposes an executable cut of represented influence paths, while capability and effect verification checks schema-defined effects against authority compiled from the authenticated request. We distinguish the certified execution contract from the evaluated configuration, which can restore an authorized call after a proposed block or apply a declared repair. Confinement requires the final action to preserve the certified cut. On eight executable agent-security benchmarks with three target-model families, the evaluated configuration gives strictly lowest attack success in 62 of 79 eligible attack columns and ties in 14; full-benchmark native utility loses at most three points relative to the undefended agent. A complete ablation over 1167 paired cases attributes most security gains to effect verification and refusal control to boundary adaptation. A reduced-scale adaptive search succeeds on 0/30 out-of-authority targets against the defense.

Autonomous large language model (LLM) agents increasingly interact in network environments where adversarial content can propagate between agents. Known attacks include agent worms, which spread through self-replicating prompt injections or configuration compromises. We introduce \emph{memetic trojans}, a distinct class of network-mediated attack that exploits agents' tendencies to retransmit and amplify content. Unlike agent worms, whose propagation is adversarially induced, memetic trojans exploit \emph{endogenous} transmission by embedding adversarial payloads in \emph{social contagions}: content agents have internal reasons to share. As part of our work, we extract social contagions from Moltbook, a social media platform for LLM agents. Controlled transmission experiments reveal large differences in virality: the most effective contagion is retransmitted in approximately 50% of subsequent agent posts and upvoted at 2.5x the average post's rate. Its memetic trojan counterpart largely inherits these properties. Monte Carlo attack simulations show that memetic trojans amplify expected exposure by up to 3.19x. Network structure and amplification mechanisms strongly shape propagation, producing heavy-tailed outcomes with near network-wide exposure. These results identify endogenous social transmission as a distinct security vulnerability in multi-agent systems. Because propagation does not require agents to follow malicious retransmission instructions, defenses focused on prompt-injection detection or preventing agent compromise cannot alone prevent memetic trojan propagation. Securing large-scale agent ecosystems may require network-level defenses that account for how agent preferences, recommendation mechanisms, and network topology amplify adversarial payloads.

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in complex environments, multi-turn interaction attacks have become a significant security challenge. Existing detection methods typically rely on historical context. However, this retrospective logic struggles to identify deep malicious intents that are split across turns to hide future risks. Inspired by speculative decoding, we propose the Speculative Safety Honeypot (SSH) framework. SSH uses a multi-agent simulation system composed of small LLMs to build an action-level speculate-and-verify workflow. In the speculation stage, SSH predicts future behaviors of the target agent and asynchronously builds a trajectory tree to expose potential risks in advance. In the verification stage, the system uses the target agent's real actions to calibrate and prune the trajectory tree, effectively reducing false positives. As a plug-and-playable component, SSH provides existing detectors with rich decision redundancy beyond the current interaction slice. By judging risk based on the evolution of the entire trajectory tree rather than a single point in time, the system reduces the reliance on the absolute precision of individual detection components. This improves the defense resilience and the warning lead-time of agent systems against complex temporal attacks.

LLM agents increasingly rely on reusable Skills for complex, multi-step tasks, creating a critical supply-chain attack surface where poisoned Skill content steers agent decision loops under benign requests. Existing skill poisoning attacks either colocate actuation with its contextual pretext or distribute actuation across multiple Skills, but do not explicitly separate the rationale for execution from the operation itself. In this work, we reveal that untrusted agent decisions fundamentally depend on two conceptually distinct Risk-Realization Factors (RRFs): an actuation factor (specifying what concrete operation is performed) and a pretext factor (providing the situational rationale for why the agent must perform it). Guided by this abstraction, we propose a coordination-based attack paradigm: decoupling pretext from actuation. Rather than fragmenting the malicious actuation, we preserve it as an intact operation within a downstream Steering Skill, while delegating the pretext factor to an upstream Grounding Skill that subtly alters persistent environment artifacts through routine utility operations. The intact actuation thus hides in plain sight, appearing completely legitimate and task-driven only when evaluated against the fabricated pretext. Building on this formulation, we develop an automated framework that discovers authentic execution dependencies, synthesizes coordinated pretext-actuation skill pairs, and iteratively refines poisoned skill instructions via runtime closed-loop feedback. Extensive evaluations across single-session and persistent cross-lifecycle scenarios demonstrate that decoupled skill poisoning achieves high attack success, exposing a critical blind spot in isolated Skill security audits. Our automated framework code is available at https://github.com/Wenxin-buaa/CoordPoison.git.

LLM agents increasingly rely on installable skills, which are packages of instructions, code, and resources that equip them with task-specific capabilities and, once installed, can be automatically invoked across subsequent user tasks. This creates a chain of trust in which users delegate authority to agents, while agent frameworks admit skill-provided content into the agents' context with insufficient validation, allowing malicious skills to influence agent behavior under that delegated authority. Yet, little is known about whether this trust model adequately constrains untrusted skill content before it reaches security-sensitive operations, or how frequently such trust violations arise in real-world agents. We present TrustProbe, a framework for uncovering unsafe chains of trust in skill-based LLM agents. First, TrustProbe analyzes agent source code to identify source-to-sink call paths from skill-controlled inputs to security-sensitive operations. Second, it generates semantically realistic SKILL.md seeds with injected canaries and evolves them through feedback-guided scheduling and mutation. Finally, it validates vulnerabilities using an oracle that confirms attacker-controlled flows and verifies observable harm. Across 11 open-source agents, eight with more than 10,000 GitHub stars, TrustProbe identifies 104 taint-style vulnerabilities. Validation on a large corpus of real-world skills collected from public hubs such as ClawHub further shows that 25.1% of skill-agent trials exercise the identified vulnerable paths, with payload injection successfully weaponizing 15 of the vulnerabilities. These results reveal a systematic trust failure in skill-based LLM agents: untrusted skill content can reach security-sensitive operations and exercise authority delegated by users to their agents.

As LLM-based agents perform increasingly complex tasks, Agent Skills have emerged as a flexible mechanism for extending their capabilities. An Agent Skill packages task-specific instructions with executable components and auxiliary resources to provide specialized functionalities. However, the growing adoption of third-party Skills introduces a new supply-chain attack surface. Malicious Skills can embed harmful behaviors that abuse agent privileges and compromise the agent execution environment or accessible resources. Although recent LLM-based malicious Skill auditing approaches have achieved promising performance, they often rely on capable commercial LLMs. How to achieve effective auditing with compact, locally deployable LLMs in security-sensitive and resource-constrained settings remains largely unexplored. Our investigation reveals that compact LLMs struggle to identify malicious behaviors hidden in complex Skill packages. This difficulty arises from both the implicit nature of such behaviors and the limited reasoning capacity of compact LLMs. To address these challenges, we propose SKILLLITE, an evidence-guided agentic framework for malicious Skill detection. SKILLLITE effectively extracts security-relevant behaviors and infers the intended functionality from complex Skill packages. It then employs a compact LLM to assess the maliciousness of the Skill based on the observed behaviors and their functional context. Experiments show that SKILLLITE improves malicious Skill detection across different compact LLM backbones and outperforms existing representative auditing baselines. Its effectiveness generalizes to behaviorally confirmed in-the-wild malicious Skills. Meanwhile, SKILLLITE maintains a low inference latency, supporting its practical deployment.

Indirect prompt injection makes an LLM agent treat untrusted retrieved text as instructions. We present CounterSteer, an inference-time defense that suppresses this behavior inside the model. Per model, a five-step recipe fits a residual-stream direction from paired episodes differing only in whether an embedded instruction is followed, and retains it only if it passes pre-specified causal and capability gates. At deployment, the direction is subtracted from every tool-result token during prefill. The edit is always on--there is no detection decision to evade--and requires no fine-tuning, auxiliary model, or added tokens, only white-box serving and tool-result span boundaries. Across five open-weights models (8B-106B, five vendor lineages), held-out attack success falls from 0.21-1.00 undefended to 0.00-0.17 defended, and AgentDojo compromise rate from 0.10-0.49 to 0.006-0.079, at 93-100% typography-normalized benign utility, with larger task-dependent costs when reasoning over steered content. A benchmark-level adaptive attacker reaching 0.67-0.73 undefended is held to roughly a quarter of that on the two most deeply evaluated models. Among the defenses we measured on capable models, those achieving lower compromise rates either lost 22-89% of benign utility or fine-tuned the served weights. White-box gradient attacks through the deployed vector compromise at most 2 of 52 episodes, and none of 2,052 replayed human red-team attacks succeeds. CounterSteer largely neutralizes instructional takeover: a black-box framing search cracks 3 of 18 development samples. Parameter manipulation--attacker-chosen arguments in otherwise legitimate calls--is only partially resisted (13 of 18); the decision becomes linearly readable at argument emission but not at the examined pre-generation sites, and is not removed by the tested prefill- or decode-time steering, motivating argument-provenance controls.

Tool-enabled agents form calls from model-visible interfaces, while hosts later select their implementation. Standard dispatch omits the descriptor-handler relation. An unchanged and schema-valid call can therefore acquire a different security effect during rollout, reconnect, or delayed approval. We call this failure schema-epoch drift. We present formation-consistent dispatch (FCD), which connects implementation analysis to execution authority. Reviewed profiles produce provenance-bound over-approximations of declared in-scope effects from official source. Under a closed-target approval policy, a verifier applies each formed call to a summary and captures a successor only when its effects fit the call's security contract. Atomic admission and a final-hop fence preserve this decision to the effect. The exact source retains priority, and the captured successor becomes eligible only after source retirement. Stock releases and deployment changes reproduced the failure. Four profiles covered 32 official releases: 29 required no release-specific change and three escalated. A frozen 16-release expansion matched a separate source oracle. In a preregistered stock comparison, FCD completed all three pending calls whose effect remained private and blocked all three whose omission became public. Exact pinning and release-wide denial stopped all six calls, while release-wide approval completed all six but produced three public effects. A separate lifecycle experiment carried a formation-captured certificate across source retirement. The same safe certificate installed later governed new formations without expanding the pending call's authority.

LLM agents operate in persistent collaborative environments involving multiple users, communities, memories, files, and tools. Community boundaries may remain fixed or evolve with changes in membership, roles, composition, and relationships. Agents must complete legitimate tasks and prevent unauthorized disclosure of protected information. Existing evaluations do not fully examine these risks in agent systems. We introduce \textbf{CoSec}, an executable benchmark for evaluating privacy and authorization enforcement in LLM agent systems operating within and across communities. CoSec contains 208 canonical scenarios spanning fixed and evolving boundaries, protected information belonging to the agent owner or other participants, and attacks through dialogue, environmental content, persistent memory, and composed workflows. CoSec executes complete agent systems with persistent sessions, memory, files and tools. It verifies information flows against the active authorization state using execution traces and artifacts. Across harness and model configurations, agents frequently complete benign tasks but violate privacy and authorization boundaries. Privacy behavior varies across harnesses, attack surfaces, and community states, revealing how memory, files, tools, and workflows can carry protected information beyond its authorized scope. These findings show that task utility does not imply privacy or authorization compliance and that authorization in community settings remains an unresolved security challenge for persistent LLM agents.

Large language model (LLM)-based agents increasingly rely on external tools and content, exposing them to indirect prompt injection (IPI). This threat has motivated a wide range of defenses, among which training-based defenses are often regarded as most reliable. However, existing training-based defenses are typically optimized on a static distribution of explicit injections. They learn surface-form cues rather than the boundary between serving the user and obeying an injected objective, and therefore fail when malicious intent is folded into a plausible workflow and deferred for several turns. We present CoDeL, a defense that hardens agent against an attack distribution it reshapes as it trains. The defender is updated each round via LoRA-based GDPO under a decoupled reward over safety, task progress, and format compliance, so refusing injections and completing the user's task jointly define fitness. To keep supplying it with the failures worth learning from, a co-evolving prober searches over injection rounds, attack methods, and payloads for injections that still penetrate the current defender, guided jointly by attack success and attack latency so that it preferentially mines breaches the defender notices too late. Each defender update invalidates part of the attack population and forces the next round onto a new frontier, turning the defender's own failures into a moving curriculum. Extensive experiments on three IPI benchmarks, nine baselines, and two base models show that CoDeL reduces attack success rate (ASR) by 88.5% and outperforms other baselines largely (+38.0%). Codes are available.

Autonomous LLM agents turn vulnerability discovery into a repository-scale search: they generate many vulnerability hypotheses but can verify only a subset under a finite budget. We show that autonomous vulnerability discovery exhibits a hypothesis-verification asymmetry, where verifying a candidate hypothesis through reachability analysis, execution, and proof-of-concept construction is substantially more expensive than forming it. Under a finite resource budget, this makes autonomous discovery a resource-bounded selective-verification process, further exposing verification effort as a unique defense surface. We present RedHerring, which inserts certifiably safe decoys that divert verification effort from real vulnerabilities. Each decoy combines a CVE-derived vulnerability chain that attracts verification with a false bridge that keeps its dangerous sink unreachable. A private certificate lets the defender verify this property efficiently, while establishing the same fact from the released repository requires solving a computationally hard problem. RedHerring further adapts each decoy to the target repository so that it reads as ordinary program logic. Across 33 OSS-Fuzz projects, 70 evaluation instances, and five models under matched budgets, RedHerring reduces real vulnerabilities discovered by 38.7-60.4%. Trajectory analysis shows that agents spend 30.6-51.5% of completion tokens and an estimated 32.5-49.9% of runtime verifying decoys, showing that RedHerring redirects a substantial fraction of the fixed search budget toward decoys. When explicitly informed that decoys may be present, the agent adapts its search strategy, yet RedHerring still reduces vulnerabilities discovered by 37.2% relative to an informed Baseline, showing that its effectiveness does not depend on decoy secrecy.

LLM agents increasingly take privileged, often irreversible structured actions, such as paying an invoice. They assemble each action from action-critical fields in documents and tool outputs that an adversary can corrupt, and indirect prompt injection can drive the model itself to extract attacker-chosen values. Current defenses gate on a source's trust label or certify free-text answer quality. None certifies the integrity of a coupled, policy-bound structured action under a corruption budget that accounts for shared upstream sources. We characterize when such an action is safely certifiable and give the maximally live safe certifier. It admits an action only when each field clears the rule its evidence structure supports: a bounded corruption radius over corruption-distinct evidence classes, counted by a minimum hitting set so that re-publishing or laundered copies cannot manufacture a quorum, deterministic reconciliation for complementary fields, and a trusted anchor where the evidence leaves a field single-sourced. We formalize two robustness notions, validate each mechanism by ablation, and measure how often the multi-source precondition holds on sanctions designations (70,966 entities) and software supply-chain provenance (450 packages). Under upper-bound proxies, genuine corroboration is a minority phenomenon in both, and naive attestation counting overstates it, since witnesses that look independent collapse to two corruption-distinct domains once shared origin is counted. Across five current models in a real agent loop, a realistic injection fools every model but one and a naive agent then executes the fraudulent action on most attacks. The certifier admits no unsafe action and recovers the correct value where corroboration permits, while action-gating and provenance baselines are broken in every world of our harness by some attack in its space.

LLM agents increasingly rely on user approval to authorize security-sensitive actions at runtime. Such approvals are granted within a specific task and execution context. In long-lived agents, authorization decisions may need to persist across tasks or sessions. We find that this continuity can outlive the context that originally justified the approval, creating residual authority reusable without renewed consent. We expose this failure mode through a longitudinal attack that starts from a target security-sensitive action, identifies the authority required to execute it, induces benign interactions that legitimately obtain that authority, and later replays the residual authority during adversarial execution. Across controlled and live settings, we demonstrate that residual-authority replay arises in practice and substantially increases the success of prompt-injection and context-rebinding attacks. We evaluate 508 AgentDojo attack cases across six LLM families using production-derived authorization semantics. With residual authority, attack success rate (ASR) increases by up to 35.1 percentage points compared with a fresh authorization state. In live context-rebinding attacks on 55 Terminal-Bench cases across three real-world production coding agents, residual-authority replay increases ASR by 24.9 percentage points on average. These findings expose a fundamental mismatch between persistent authorization and the contextual nature of user consent in long-lived LLM agents.

Tool-using large language model (LLM) agents turn credential hygiene from a storage problem into an execution-security problem. A key pasted into a prompt, or embedded in a system prompt or tool configuration, crosses from an authentication boundary into a data pipeline, where it may persist in conversation history, logs, memory stores, generated code, and error payloads. Prompt injection and excessive agency then convert passive disclosure into unauthorized action. This paper formalizes the credential-exposure threat chain for agentic systems; synthesizes evidence from a platform secret-store incident, vendor-reported secret-sprawl measurement, and OWASP and NIST guidance; and describes a vault-mediated execution architecture in which the model selects a connector identifier while a trusted request boundary supplies authentication. We evaluate a production implementation, Corvic Security Vault, in two controlled black-box experiments. Across 16 probes spanning seven control domains, every probe met its expected outcome: an authenticated GitHub API request succeeded while the credential stayed absent from process environment values, caller-visible request headers, tested filesystem locations, three third-party echo services, and two unrelated API origins; both cloud instance-metadata endpoints were unreachable. We also report a negative result, a connector whose stored header mapping did not satisfy its provider's authentication contract, showing that centralized custody does not by itself guarantee correct configuration. Vault mediation removes several disclosure paths but is necessary rather than sufficient: least privilege, deterministic action authorization, human approval, telemetry redaction, and rotation remain independently required. The study is purposive and small, a functional security evaluation rather than a certification.

Autonomous penetration-testing harnesses use large language models (LLMs) for reconnaissance, exploitation, and reporting, but often rely on those same models to confirm findings, grade severity, and select agents. This can lead to false positives, inflated severity, and wasted compute. We examine how System One decision models, lightweight non-generative classifiers that return typed, calibrated verdicts, can support these decisions. We make five contributions. First, we define four decision points: finding adjudication, severity recalibration, agent pruning, and confirmation loops. Second, we present an exploratory NeuroSploit case study comparing one run with TypeSafe System One (Jev) and one without it against a web target containing 13 vulnerabilities. Differences in severity distribution, runtime, and grading by exposed data type motivate the architecture but do not establish statistical significance. Third, we review published specifications for Jev, Jev-Ultrafast, and the open-source Laya without assuming that results from other benchmarks transfer to penetration testing. Fourth, we discuss RLHF, RLAIF, RLCD, and RLHV as training approaches and their implications for trust in security decisions. Finally, we propose Rave, a domain-adapted System One model, and outline its training data, evaluation protocol, and potential effect on harness assurance.

Blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) are converging into a single infrastructural layer for securing data sharing, model integrity, and autonomous decision-making across distributed systems. This paper presents a meta-synthesis that draws together four constituent studies covering adversarial machine learning, AI-powered anomaly detection in cloud environments, automated vulnerability patching by multi-agent large language model (LLM) pipelines, and the broader landscape of securing AI systems across their lifecycle and situates their findings within the emerging literature on blockchain-enabled AI and autonomous AI agents. Each constituent study addresses a distinct point of failure in modern AI-driven security operations: the integrity of training data and model behavior, the reliability of real-time monitoring, and the trustworthiness of automated code remediation. We argue that blockchain's properties of immutability, decentralized consensus, and verifiable provenance directly address a gap common to all three: the difficulty of establishing trust in data, models, and autonomous agents that operate without a central authority. Building on real-world research on blockchain-secured data sharing, federated learning, and multi-agent coordination, we propose a layered reference architecture that couples adversarially hardened models, blockchain-anchored data provenance, AI-driven anomaly detection, and smart-contract-governed multi-agent remediation. We conclude by identifying open problems in scalability, privacy-transparency trade-offs, and the governance of autonomous agents that must be resolved before such integrated systems can be trusted in production-critical environments.

Multi-step tool-calling LLM agents rely on host runtimes to preserve state across turns. When a runtime carries an external tool return into later model inputs, providers meter it again. An admitted malicious or compromised tool can thereby convert untrusted data into recurring victim-billed processing without victim credentials or local runtime privilege. We call retained content persistent billable state and formalize the host's decision over whether and how it enters later billable context as the persistent billable-state boundary. We present the first systematic security study of this post-admission lifecycle. We derive six denial-of-wallet attack vectors and build DOW-BENCH, an end-to-end harness evaluated across six model families. Across 243 executions, usage telemetry shows that the maximum per-session cumulative input reaches 14,293x the session's first-call input. Controlled history-policy reruns isolate raw retention's contribution: retaining raw history increases mean effective session cost by 21.2-35.9%. Compression succeeds on 10/12 and 11/12 history-dependent tasks, versus 2/12 under deletion for each provider. To govern this boundary, we combine deterministic history transformation with four host-side invariants that bound prompt mass, context growth, recursive opportunity, and cumulative spend before reingestion. The kernel contains every recurring attack in the 123-evaluation replay corpus. Across 24 Mistral Small 4 workflows, a progress-authorized policy achieves 22/24 oracle-verified task successes with no pre-completion interruptions, versus 13/24 under a fixed cap. Only 71 of 3,830 scanned MCP server and transport repositories expose any code-visible safeguard proxy, and none cover all four safeguard families. These results establish persistent billable state as a first-class security object and pre-reingestion as its host-owned control point.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly execute long-horizon workflows through external tools, allowing untrusted outputs to influence subsequent actions and exceed user authorization. Existing defenses isolate injected content or constrain execution with predefined plans and static policies, but these approaches are brittle under dynamic workflows and scale poorly across extensible tool ecosystems. In this work, we present ActGov, a runtime enforcement framework that validates each LLM-proposed tool action before it causes external effects. Built on a unified semantic model of authorization, actions, runtime context, and security constraints, the ActGov-Policy component iteratively constructs a policy set from tool specifications, benign tasks, and observed failure traces, with each update verified through SMT-based counterexample checking. At runtime, ActGov-Runtime abstracts each tool call into finite policy records and permits it only if it remains within the task-scoped authorization boundary and satisfies all applicable policies. This per-action enforcement preserves authorization throughout long-horizon, dynamically branching workflows. We evaluate ActGov on the AgentDojo and AgentDyn benchmarks across multiple models and attack configurations. It shows that ActGov consistently reduces the success rate of indirect prompt-injection attacks while preserving task utility, significantly outperforming existing defenses. These results demonstrate that ActGov can enforce fine-grained authorization over dynamic agent executions without relying on the underlying LLM to correctly identify malicious instructions.

Autonomous large language model (LLM) agents are moving rapidly into high-stakes domains, yet existing agentic-AI security studies remain largely domain-agnostic and overlook the distinctive, high-consequence attack surface such settings create. We examine this gap through financial trading agents, a representative case of high-stakes agentic security, where a single compromised agent has direct execution authority over real capital in an adversarial, reflexive market. To this end, we present FARSIGHT (Financial Agent Robustness and Security Investigation and Global Holistic Testing), a framework that performs scheme-level evaluation of financial LLM agents on two axes: robustness under market turbulence (including flash-crash-like scenarios), and security against three attack types: attacks on information sources, attacks on agents, and agent-as-attacker behaviors. Applying FARSIGHT to 15 representative academic schemes, we find that most overlook robustness and realistic adversarial threats: 80% fail at least one core robustness metric and 100% exhibit security vulnerabilities. These two failure modes are inseparable: a small misjudgment can cascade into a market-wide crash on its own, while an adversary can deliberately trigger the same collapse at minimal cost.

Privacy evaluations of tool-using LLM agents often inspect a designated action, final response, or attacker report. These local proxies can miss unauthorized exposure elsewhere in a multi-step session and lack common ground truth across outlets, reports, and tool paths. We introduce privacy exposure displacement, the mismatch between a local evaluation proxy and target-grounded session exposure, and ASLEval, an authorization-aware framework that pre-registers a hidden target set, measures all declared visible exits, and reserves internal traces for diagnosis. Across multiple enterprise-style environments and independently implemented runtimes, we observe three recurring patterns. An expected-outlet-only view misses 46.9% of exposure recovered by the visible-exit union; attacker self-reports combine omissions with high false discovery; and schema-aligned internal evidence usually precedes visible exposure at the request/probe level. Reducing model-visible returns changes this path but can eliminate normal-task success. Independent human review supports the adjudication pipeline while identifying harder console and candidate cases. These findings motivate benchmarks that declare the complete visible boundary, ground claims in pre-specified targets and authorization, and report privacy together with task utility.

When Emergence World placed frontier LLM agents in an unsupervised multi-agent simulation, the results were alarming: agents committed crimes, starved, and enforced unanimous conformity -- without any external attacker. This paper identifies the mechanism. Reflexion-style agents already detect dangerous plan steps through iterative self-critique, yet the architecture provides no pathway from detection to action. We call this the enforcement gap: the audit sees the problem; the controller ignores it. Closing the gap requires a single conditional check -- fewer than 20 lines of code -- and reduces attack success by more than fourfold in large-scale experiments across frontier models, all five major agent frameworks, and an independent benchmark. We prove formally that when enforcement probability is near zero, detection quality is irrelevant to security. We further identify two compounding failure modes -- unreliable auditors and unparseable verdicts -- that explain every collapse pattern in Emergence World. A GRPO-trained enforcement controller resolves the ambiguity case. Concurrent work on filtering and information-flow control addresses the detection step but leaves the enforcement gap unaddressed; our results show this is the binding constraint. Together these results motivate a three-requirement Audit Enforcement Specification that is absent from every deployed framework today.

Multi-tenant tools commonly accept a tenant identifier and validate it against the caller's entitlement. For a large language model (LLM) agent, that pattern delegates resource selection to a process whose context may contain attacker controlled instructions. We formalize this stochastic deputy problem and present a structural defense: remove tenant identity from the Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool schema, bind scope to a verified credential, and enforce it below the agent. In a 373-trial ablation across eight model configurations and two transports, a correctly validated tenant parameter served every out-of-scope attempt: 26 of 26, or 26 of 41 plausible-pretext trials overall. With the parameter removed, no tool signature could express the read. Twelve of 56 trials instead escaped the interface by forging writable scope, showing that interface invariance requires cryptographically protected context. On a production dataset containing multiple GBs of data, set-valued scope caused a measured $57\times$ latency ratio under function-wrapped membership predicates; a JSON_TABLE lateral join recovered index access where the tenant key was indexed. The evaluation also exposes deployment limits, including an entitlement-size query-planner cliff and incomplete index coverage. The result is a tenant-isolation argument that depends on enforceable interfaces and credentials rather than model compliance.

Agent skills are reusable units for language-model agents, but their risks emerge through model decisions, user context, tool calls, and execution feedback rather than through stable signatures or a single sandbox run. Existing static, dynamic, and benchmark-style evaluations rarely preserve public evidence that can be inspected, searched, and reused. We present SkillAtlas, a hosted attack trace library that converts private agent-skill security report bundles into reviewed, redacted, and searchable public cases. The library contains 3,014 cases, 6,589 traces, 151,131 steps, 233 affected skills, and 8 risk categories; 42.5% of successful cases first become successful after a non-success initial round, and trajectory-grounded labels improve pre-execution guard accuracy to 0.770.

This paper presents an end-to-end evaluation framework for image-triggered command injection against computer-use agents (CUAs). The goal is to test whether a local visual patch can induce verifiable environmental consequences along the full chain of screenshot input, VLM generation, action parsing, and environment execution. We train and deploy patches on author-controlled GitHub Pages pages and a locally deployed CSDN clone, and evaluate them in real environments across five open-source or publicly available GUI-agent or vision-language-model (VLM) backends. Our experiment aggregates 600 instance-level online cases, with T-ASR, TAPR, and E2E-ASR reaching 84.5%, 47.0%, and 20.3%, respectively. Trajectory analysis further shows that in some successful cases the agent first executes a malicious terminal command and then continues the original benign task. These results indicate that optimized local visual signals can affect not only VLM outputs but also propagate through the execution pipeline of open CUAs and create real environmental risk.