Veer is introduced, an agent-side runtime defense that leaves task planning to the base agent and intervenes on Web state when a proposed action would produce an unauthorized consequence, establishing task-relevant Web state as an effective runtime control target for protecting Web agents from deceptive outcomes.
Abstract
LLM-based Web agents can autonomously complete user tasks, yet deceptive interfaces can steer them toward outcomes that conflict with users'interests. Existing defenses primarily intervene on agent behavior through blocking, guidance, or replanning. We identify a distinct failure mode: a task-valid action can still realize an unauthorized consequence because of the current Web state. This motivates treating task-relevant Web state itself as a runtime control target. We introduce Veer, an agent-side runtime defense that leaves task planning to the base agent and intervenes on Web state when a proposed action would produce an unauthorized consequence. Before modifying the live environment, Veer constructs a prospective intervention trajectory toward a safe task-relevant state and executes it with runtime grounding and verification. Across TrickyArena and WebDecept, Veer achieves the highest safe task completion in all three evaluation settings, exceeding the next-best defense by 15.9 and 25.0 percentage points on TrickyArena-Single and TrickyArena-Multi, respectively, while reducing dark-pattern success on WebDecept to 0.3%. These gains persist across dark-pattern types and all 12 agent, model, and benchmark configurations. Ablations show that active state intervention provides the largest gain, while prospective rollout and temporal evidence contribute additional improvements. These results establish task-relevant Web state as an effective runtime control target for protecting Web agents from deceptive outcomes.
This work forms attack and defense as partially observed state control in SEAD, deriving their design requirements from this shared execution process and constructs an environment-verifiable dataset integrating controlled initial states, replayable tool environments, and task-specific executable checks.
Xin-Jie Shen, Jun-Ran Wang, Rong-Zhe Wei et al.· 0 citations
LLM agents can make unsafe tool calls even when instructed to behave safely. Existing defenses constrain agents before execution, modify tool inputs/outputs, or rely on LLM judges; these approaches may depend on model behavior or block unsafe actions without helping the agent recover. We argue that the execution enviro...
Charlie Summers, Prajwal Raghunath, Aaditya Pai et al.· 0 citations
A centralized LLM-based multi-agent system (MAS) extends its functionality by registering new worker agents, whose descriptions are read by the planner to decide how a task is decomposed, which worker executes each subtask, and what each subtask requires. Third-party descriptions are authored outside the system but tru...
Results validate that a lightweight inference-time intervention can substantially boost GUI Agent's competence to identify inappropriate execution scenarios and refrain from unnecessary actions.
Zhao-Yuan Huang, Tian-Jie Ju, Pengzhou Cheng et al.· 1 citation
This paper proposes a split-control architecture in which an untrusted planner emits typed security intents, a deterministic governor checks each intent against safety, resource, temporal-stability, and proportionality invariants, and only admitted actions are bound to signed receipts and compiled into pre-installed eB...
Ijaz Ahmad, Ijaz Ahmad, Flavio Esposito et al.· IEEE Conference on Communica...· 0 citations
Modern Computer Use Agents (CUAs) directly interact with graphical user interfaces and execute third-party web tools, exposing them to indirect prompt injection across every rendered page and tool response. While the Dual-LLM pattern is the primary system-level architecture offering formal security guarantees - using a...
Giulio Zingrillo, Hanna Foerster, Ilia Shumailov et al.· 0 citations