Mind the Gap: Action Rebinding Attacks against Android GUI Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Large multimodal model powered GUI agents are emerging as high-privilege operators on mobile platforms, entrusted to perceive screen content and inject inputs across application boundaries. While these agents aim to automate complex tasks, we demonstrate that their design introduces a fundamental conflict with Android's strict application sandboxing. We present a novel cross-application Action Rebinding attack, which allows a malicious application with zero dangerous permissions to hijack the agent's execution and perform privileged operations on behalf of the attacker. Our attack exploits the inevitable observation-action gap inherent in the agent's reasoning pipeline. A malicious app can render a benign ``contextual carrier'' to elicit a planned action, and then swap the foreground to a sensitive target application during the reasoning latency. The agent, unaware of the transition, unwittingly executes the action in the privileged context. We further advance this attack by weaponizing the agent's own task-recovery logic to create programmable, multi-step exploit loops , and introducing an Intent Alignment Strategy (IAS) that manipulates the agent's reasoning to rationalize the hijacked state. We evaluate our attack on six widely-used Android GUI agents. Our results demonstrate a 100% success rate for atomic action hijacking and the ability to orchestrate high-impact exploits, including unauthorized file deletion, SMS transmission, and app uninstallation, without the attacker holding any corresponding permissions. Furthermore, since the malicious application separates intent from capability and contains no privileged API calls, it achieves a 0% detection rate across commercial malware scanners (e.g., VirusTotal), highlighting a critical blind spot in current mobile security analysis. To access experimental logs and demonstration videos, please contact [email protected].
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 16 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jan 2026.
Builds on
16 of 45 references.
Closest ancestors · 9
Same direction, newest first
- 2025DualTAP: A Dual-Task Adversarial Protector for Mobile MLLM Agents17 Nov
- 2025OS-Sentinel: Towards Safety-Enhanced Mobile GUI Agents via Hybrid Validation in Realistic Workflows28 Oct
- 2025GhostEI-Bench: Do Mobile Agents Resilience to Environmental Injection in Dynamic On-Device Environments?23 Oct
- 2025LaSM: Layer-wise Scaling Mechanism for Defending Pop-up Attack on GUI Agents13 Jul
- 2025From Assistants to Adversaries: Exploring the Security Risks of Mobile LLM Agents19 May
- 2025The Obvious Invisible Threat: LLM-Powered GUI Agents' Vulnerability to Fine-Print Injections15 Apr
- 2025In-Context Defense in Computer Agents: An Empirical Study12 Mar
- 2025Evaluating the Robustness of Multimodal Agents Against Active Environmental Injection Attacks18 Feb
- 2024Attacking Vision-Language Computer Agents via Pop-ups4 Nov
Other references · 7
- 2023CogAgent: A Visual Language Model for GUI Agentscited by 692
- 2023AppAgent: Multimodal Agents as Smartphone Userscited by 407
- 2025Mobile-Agent-v3: Fundamental Agents for GUI Automationcited by 183
- 2025AppAgentX: Evolving GUI Agents as Proficient Smartphone Userscited by 44
- 2025AgentCPM-GUI: Building Mobile-Use Agents with Reinforcement Fine-Tuningcited by 44
- 2021Understanding Mobile GUI: from Pixel-Words to Screen-Sentencescited by 13
- 2025Mobile GUI Agents under Real-world Threats: Are We There Yet?cited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 6.
6 papers.
- 2026Safe, or Simply Incapable? Rethinking Safety Evaluation for Phone-Use Agentscited by 1
- 2026Temporal UI State Inconsistency in Desktop GUI Agents: Formalizing and Defending Against TOCTOU Attacks on Computer-Use Agentscited by 0
- 2026Securing Computer-Use Agents: A Unified Architecture-Lifecycle Framework for Deployment-Grounded Reliabilitycited by 0
- 2026DRIVE: Modeling Skills at the Reasoning and Interaction Levels for Web Agents under Continual Learningcited by 0
- 2026When Agents See Differently: Exposing UI Desynchronization Threats in Mobile Agentscited by 0
- 2026Right Screen, Wrong Transition: World Models as Verifiers for GUI Agentscited by 0
- 2026Right Screen, Wrong Transition: World Models as Verifiers for GUI Agents8 Oct 2026
- 2026When Agents See Differently: Exposing UI Desynchronization Threats in Mobile Agents15 Sep 2026
- 2026Safe, or Simply Incapable? Rethinking Safety Evaluation for Phone-Use Agents8 May 2026
- 2026Securing Computer-Use Agents: A Unified Architecture-Lifecycle Framework for Deployment-Grounded Reliability8 May 2026
- 2026DRIVE: Modeling Skills at the Reasoning and Interaction Levels for Web Agents under Continual Learning28 Apr 2026
- 2026Temporal UI State Inconsistency in Desktop GUI Agents: Formalizing and Defending Against TOCTOU Attacks on Computer-Use Agents20 Apr 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026AgentRAE: Remote Action Execution through Notification-based Visual Backdoors against Screenshots-based Mobile GUI Agents
- 2026MobileWorldSafety: Benchmarking GUI Agent Safety Against Environmental Injection Attacks in Android Apps
- 2025Who Grants the Agent Power? Defending Against Instruction Injection via Task-Centric Access Control
- 2026(A)I Sees What You Don't: Exploiting New Attack Surfaces in Third-Party Mobile Agents
- 2026Are Android GUI Agents Robust Against Runtime Anomalies? AnTrap: Evaluating Agents in Dynamic Adversarial Environments
- 2026Blind Gods and Broken Screens: Architecting a Secure, Intent-Centric Mobile Agent Operating System
- 2026Not an A11y: How Android Accessibility Exposes Mobile AI Agents to Indirect Prompt Injection
- 2025D-GARA: A Dynamic Benchmarking Framework for GUI Agent Robustness in Real-World Anomalies