It is argued that adversarial vulnerability stems from the absence of boundary verification, a security primitive that enforces explicit validation of data as it crosses inter-agent boundaries, including content, identity, execution intent, and state integrity.
Abstract
Multi-agent LLM pipelines orchestrate multiple specialized language model agents into structured workflows where intermediate outputs are passed across agents to solve complex tasks. This design introduces a security gap absent in single-agent settings: once an agent accepts adversarial content, it is propagated as trusted input throughout the pipeline. We argue that this vulnerability stems from the absence of boundary verification, a security primitive that enforces explicit validation of data as it crosses inter-agent boundaries, including content, identity, execution intent, and state integrity. Without such verification, modern pipelines embed implicit trust assumptions that are not adversarially robust, giving rise to structurally distinct attack surfaces (e.g., content injection, agent impersonation, plan deviation, and memory poisoning). Leveraging annotated production traces from the GAIA and SWE-Bench benchmark, we show that these vulnerabilities arise in benign deployments and largely evade existing evaluation frameworks. We further operationalize these failure modes within a controlled multi-agent setting and evaluate them across GPT-5-mini, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Kimi K2.5 under identical pipeline configurations. The results reveal that attack success aligns with pipeline structure rather than model capability, indicating that adversarial vulnerability is fundamentally an architectural property and motivating a shift toward pipeline-level defenses.
AI agents are being used more in high-pressure situations like managing email, running code, engaging with financial APIs, and supervising multi-agent pipelines. However, current taxonomy of adversarial attacks was mostly proposed for classifiers and generative models alone and fails to adequately describe the testbed of an agent with persistent state, multiple tools, and delegated power. A previously unstated class of adversarial input called a clean attack - an input that is syntactically correct, semantically consistent with the declared task context, consistent with all observable policy constraints, similar to legitimate operator instructions and still has the goal of misguiding the agent away from the original operator goal - is identified and formalized in this paper. These attacks go around the exposed dots of the “traditional” agent security architecture that only filters on the surface. The paper has three main contributions. One, it brings in a formal definition of the clean attack as a four-tuple of input, intent vector, policy envelope and behavioral outcome. Second, it suggests two operationalizable metrics: semantic validity score (SVS) and behavioral drift index (BDI) for systematically measuring the severity of clean attack. Third, the paper these metrics and taxonomy are validated, both by a purpose-built benchmark, AegisBench, and by 300 attack scenarios in three agent classes and (twelve) commercial agent pipelines. The experimental results show that clean attacks are a safety threat of a different category: while the conventional adversarial tasks are practically impervious to these attacks (4.2% success rate of the strongest agents), they achieve a mean attack success of 61.4%.
Harsh Verma· International Journal of Sci...· 0 citations
RedAgentBench is introduced, an executable framework for autonomous red-teaming and faithful measurement that shows that executable evaluation can improve safety measurement and identify actionable intervention points.
Zixing Chen, Xingyuan Liu, Jie Zhu et al.· 0 citations
Threat modeling is essential for secure software development, yet manual analysis of cloud-native architectures is slow and demands scarce security expertise. We present ThreatForest, a multi-agent system that generates structured attack trees from source code repositories, maps attack steps to adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) from a pluggable set of frameworks (MITRE ATT&CK, CAPEC, and cloud-specific threat matrices), and synthesizes actionable mitigations. ThreatForest decomposes threat modeling into a multi-stage agent pipeline -- repository analysis, context refinement, threat generation, parallel attack-tree construction with TTP mapping and mitigation synthesis, and report generation -- orchestrated as a directed graph with deterministic verification gates, bounded retries, and three human-in-the-loop validation points. A domain-specific sentence-transformer maps each attack step to candidate techniques by cosine similarity; we show empirically that this embedding stage, not the surrounding pipeline, is the dominant accuracy bottleneck. We evaluate ThreatForest across seven application domains on a sixteen-dimension rubric, scored by a panel of independent LLM raters with an adversarial verification pass and expert review. Panel-measured quality reaches 0.63-0.68 (on a 0-1 scale) for threat statements, attack trees, and mitigations, but only 0.29 for embedding-only TTP mapping -- a gap stable across all seven domains that isolates the binding constraint. A controlled single-call baseline on the same model more than doubles mapping defensibility, pinning the limitation on the embedding encoder rather than the multi-agent design. To our knowledge, ThreatForest is the first end-to-end system that turns a code repository into TTP-mapped attack trees with evidence-based mitigations across adversary frameworks, with a reusable framework for benchmarking such systems.
C. Leo, Anton Dykyi, Danny Cortegaca et al.· 0 citations
As large language model (LLM) agents move from conversation to executing code, reading local files, and orchestrating external tools, a single agent hijacked by a malicious third-party skill can cause data exfiltration, privilege escalation, or cascading compromise. We argue that agentic risk is progressive: it can enter at four loci of the agent control loop--skill admission, invocation-time intent, execution-time effect, and post-action consequence--while a denied dangerous objective can reappear across surface forms, tools, or turns; existing safeguards are typically local to one lifecycle boundary or one call. Guided by this threat model, we present ClawSentry, an open-source, framework-agnostic security supervision gateway for agent runtimes. Before a skill package is ever executed, First-use Skill Package Review (FSPR) audits it under a deterministic evidence floor, escalating unresolved cases to bounded read-only agentic review (locus A). At runtime, a three-tier progressive decision engine--a deterministic L1 layer, a rule-anchored L2 semantic reviewer, and a read-only L3 evidence-seeking agent--spends contextual review only on the residual ambiguity, while a session-level anti-bypass mechanism recognizes tool-switching and rephrased retries (loci B--C); a post-action path feeds high-severity evidence non-retroactively into later review (locus D). An Agent Harness Protocol (AHP) abstraction applies one policy across Codex, Claude Code, Kimi CLI, and Gemini CLI without modifying agent internals. On SkillInject with Codex/GPT-5.4, contextual ASR falls from 39.55% to 2.61% while contextual TSR moves only from 83.78% to 83.05%. Across five Work Agents on the full SkillsSafety benchmark, ClawSentry confines ASR to 9.09--15.03% from 33.5--49.7% unprotected, and aggregate TSR on clean skills remains 98.7%.
Kai Wang, Zeming Wei, Biaojie Zeng et al.· 0 citations
LLM-based multi-agent trading systems, in which specialized agents collaborate through structured communication to produce trading decisions, are moving rapidly from research prototypes to live deployments that control real assets. The same inter-agent communication that makes them effective also exposes them: a corrupted signal can propagate to the final decision and translate into realized financial loss. Unlike prior attacks that presume privileged access to system internals, we restrict the adversary to what is practically reachable---the source data and prompts agents consume---yielding a low-barrier, and thus democratized threat model instantiated as role-specific adversaries. We present the first systematic empirical study in the financial domain to characterize how an adversarial signal enters a multi-agent trading system and how far it survives toward the decision. Along the role axis, we decompose a widely-used trading pipeline into four functional roles---Analyst, Researcher, Trader, and Risk Manager---and pair each with an attack matched to its interface. Along the structural axis, we evaluate four communication topologies under data- and agent-level attacks, using the Adversarial Signal Preservation Score (APS) as a post-hoc lens on why some designs are more robust than others. We conduct experiments across five assets, two backbones, and two target directions. A central finding is that no architecture is inherently robust. These findings provide insights for the future design of safer and more robust agentic trading systems.
CheolWon Na, Hao Ni, Lukasz Szpruch et al.· 0 citations
A four-layer taxonomy mapping 13 vulnerability types across perception, brain, action, and interaction layers is contributed, and seven open problems centered on containment are identified.
Md Jafrin Hossain, Mohammad Arif Hossain, Nirwan Ansari· 0 citations