ATAG: AI-Agent Application Threat Assessment with Attack Graphs
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Evaluating the security of multi-agent systems (MASs) powered by large language models (LLMs) is challenging, primarily because of the systems' complex internal dynamics and the evolving nature of LLM vulnerabilities. Traditional attack graph (AG) methods often lack the specific capabilities to model attacks on LLMs. This paper introduces AI-agent application Threat assessment with Attack Graphs (ATAG), a novel framework designed to systematically analyze the security risks associated with AI-agent applications. ATAG extends the MulVAL logic-based AG generation tool with custom facts and interaction rules to accurately represent AI-agent topologies, vulnerabilities, and attack scenarios. As part of this research, we also created the LLM vulnerability database (LVD) to initiate the process of standardizing LLM vulnerabilities documentation. To demonstrate ATAG's efficacy, we applied it to two multi-agent applications. Our case studies demonstrated the framework's ability to model and generate AGs for sophisticated, multi-step attack scenarios exploiting vulnerabilities such as prompt injection, excessive agency, sensitive information disclosure, and insecure output handling across interconnected agents. ATAG is an important step toward a robust methodology and toolset to help understand, visualize, and prioritize complex attack paths in multi-agent AI systems (MAASs). It facilitates proactive identification and mitigation of AI-agent threats in multi-agent applications.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 19 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jun 2025.
Builds on
19 of 69 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Securing Agentic AI: A Comprehensive Threat Model and Mitigation Framework for Generative AI Agents28 Apr
- 2025DoomArena: A framework for Testing AI Agents Against Evolving Security Threats18 Apr
- 2025Why Are Web AI Agents More Vulnerable Than Standalone LLMs? A Security Analysis27 Feb
Other references · 16
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,242
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
- 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,651
- 2024Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challengescited by 769
- 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 605
- 2024Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attackscited by 486
- 2023Scalable Extraction of Training Data from (Production) Language Modelscited by 434
- 2023Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignmentcited by 401
4 more
- 2018FIRST: A Framework for Optimizing Information Quality in Mobile Crowdsensing Systemscited by 50
- 2024Survey of different Large Language Model Architectures: Trends, Benchmarks, and Challengescited by 32
- 2019Extending Attack Graphs to Represent Cyber-Attacks in Communication Protocols and Modern IT Networkscited by 2
- 2022A Survey of MulVAL Extensions and Their Attack Scenarios Coveragecited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 3.
4 papers.
- 2025A Survey of LLM-Driven AI Agent Communication: Protocols, Security Risks, and Defense Countermeasurescited by 57
- 2026SoK: When Safe Agents Fail Together: The Security of Multi Agent LLM Systemscited by 1
- 2026Data Leakage Prevention in Agentic Applications via Preemptive Hardeningcited by 0
- 2026Automating Attack Graph Construction for Agentic Pentesting. Towards Neuro-Symbolic Vulnerability Huntingcited by 0
- 2026Automating Attack Graph Construction for Agentic Pentesting. Towards Neuro-Symbolic Vulnerability Hunting14 Sep 2026
- 2026SoK: When Safe Agents Fail Together: The Security of Multi Agent LLM Systems1 Sep 2026
- 2026Data Leakage Prevention in Agentic Applications via Preemptive Hardening21 Jul 2026
- 2025A Survey of LLM-Driven AI Agent Communication: Protocols, Security Risks, and Defense Countermeasures24 Jun 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Comprehensive Vulnerability Analysis is Necessary for Trustworthy LLM-MAS
- 2025Bridging AI and Software Security: A Comparative Vulnerability Assessment of LLM Agent Deployment Paradigms
- 2025ASTRIDE: A Security Threat Modeling Platform for Agentic-AI Applications
- 2025Shadows in the Code: Exploring the Risks and Defenses of LLM-based Multi-Agent Software Development Systems
- 2026Beyond Predefined Sinks: Security-Aware Dependency Analysis for LLM Agents
- 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents
- 2025From Prompt Injections to Protocol Exploits: Threats in LLM-Powered AI Agents Workflows
- 2025Extending the OWASP Multi-Agentic System Threat Modeling Guide: Insights from Multi-Agent Security Research