mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Verifiable Manifest Signing and Transparency Enforcement for Secure MCP-Based LLM Pipelines

arXiv 2601.23132 ↗First posted 30 Jan 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in tool-driven environments such as healthcare analytics, financial systems, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and multi-agent workflows. Although the Model Context Protocol (MCP) standardizes how LLM applications expose and invoke external tools, its baseline model does not require tool-use manifests to be cryptographically authenticated, freshness-checked, policy-bound, or independently auditable before execution. As a result, MCP pipelines may remain vulnerable to manifest tampering, unauthorized tool invocation, replay of stale requests, and weak accountability. This paper presents a manifest-level enforcement layer for MCP-based LLM pipelines. It treats each MCP tool-use manifest as a first-class security object whose canonical form must be policy-validated, freshness-checked, digitally signed, verified before execution, and linked to tamper-evident audit evidence. The framework binds tool invocation to verifiable manifest integrity and fail-closed authorization, separates user-visible request parameters from execution metadata, rejects non-compliant or stale manifests before execution, and records accepted invocations in a Merkle-based transparency log. Evaluation across GPT-5.3, LLaMA-3.5, and DeepSeek-V3 using up to 50,000 manifest instances shows near-linear scalability (R^2 = 0.998), bounded verification latency (<= 9.4 ms on edge devices), and rejection of expired, malformed, replayed, and policy-violating manifests, with rejection rates above 98.7%. Experiments in healthcare, finance, RAG, and multi-agent settings show that manifest-level cryptographic enforcement enables low-overhead, traceable, and auditable execution control for heterogeneous LLM-tool pipelines.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2026.

Builds on

9 of 42 references.

References · 9

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  2. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
  3. 2025Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directionscited by 257
  4. 2024IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systemscited by 118
  5. 2025Securing the Model Context Protocol (MCP): Risks, Controls, and Governancecited by 22
  6. 2024Laminator: Verifiable ML Property Cards using Hardware-assisted Attestationscited by 9
  7. 2025Choosing to Be Green: Advancing Green AI via Dynamic Model Selectioncited by 2
  8. 2019Scanclave: Verifying Application Runtime Integrity in Untrusted Environmentscited by 1
  9. 2022TAP: Transparent and Privacy-Preserving Data Servicescited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025A First Look at the Security Issues in the Model Context Protocol Ecosystem
  2. 2025MCP Safety Audit: LLMs with the Model Context Protocol Allow Major Security Exploits
  3. 2026Hybrid Analysis for Secure MCP Tool Use in LLM Agents
  4. 2025MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM Agents
  5. 2026MCP-SandboxScan: WASM-based Secure Execution and Runtime Analysis for MCP Tools
  6. 2026ACLE-MCP: Attested Capability Leases for Execution-Time Trust in Remote LLM Tool Use
  7. 2025ETDI: Mitigating Tool Squatting and Rug Pull Attacks in Model Context Protocol (MCP) by using OAuth-Enhanced Tool Definitions and Policy-Based Access Control
  8. 2026Auditing MCP Servers for Over-Privileged Tool Capabilities