AgentRFC: Security Design Principles and Conformance Testing for Agent Protocols
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
AI agent protocols -- including MCP, A2A, ANP, and ACP -- enable autonomous agents to discover capabilities, delegate tasks, and compose services across trust boundaries. Despite massive deployment (MCP alone has 97M+ monthly SDK downloads), no systematic security framework for these protocols exists. We present three contributions. First, the Agent Protocol Stack, a 6-layer architectural model that defines what a complete agent protocol must specify at each layer -- analogous to ITU-T X.800 for the OSI stack. Second, the Agent-Agnostic Security Model, 11 security principles formalized as TLA+ invariants, each tagged with a property taxonomy (spec-mandated, spec-recommended, aasm-hardening, aps-completeness) that distinguishes protocol non-conformance from framework-imposed security requirements. Third, AgentConform, a two-phase conformance checker that (i)extracts normative clauses from protocol specifications into a typed Protocol~IR with explicit Protocol/Environment/Adversary action separation, (ii)compiles the IR into TLA+ models and model-checks them against AASM invariants, then (iii)replays counterexample traces against live SDK implementations to confirm findings. We introduce the Composition Safety (CS) principle: security properties that hold for individual protocols can break when protocols are composed through shared infrastructure. We demonstrate this with formal models of five protocol composition patterns, revealing cross-protocol design gaps that individual protocol analysis cannot detect. Preliminary application to representative agent protocols reveals recurrent gaps in credential lifecycle, consent enforcement, audit completeness, and composition safety. Some findings are under coordinated disclosure; full evaluation details will be released in the complete version.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 25 Mar 2026.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026Resume Means Resume: A Machine-Checked Conformance Contract for Checkpoint, Interrupt, and Resume Semantics in Workflow Persistence Layerscited by 2
- 2026A Decision-Centered Reference Architecture for Trustworthy Agentic Commercecited by 1
- 2026InterSAGE: The Secure and Verifiable Interoperability Protocol for An Internet of Agentscited by 0
- 2026Public-Sharing Labels and Verbatim Field Egress in an MCP-to-A2A Agent Configuration: A Controlled Multi-Model Studycited by 0
- 2026Public-Sharing Labels and Verbatim Field Egress in an MCP-to-A2A Agent Configuration: A Controlled Multi-Model Study1 Sep 2026
- 2026InterSAGE: The Secure and Verifiable Interoperability Protocol for An Internet of Agents13 Aug 2026
- 2026Resume Means Resume: A Machine-Checked Conformance Contract for Checkpoint, Interrupt, and Resume Semantics in Workflow Persistence Layers4 Aug 2026
- 2026A Decision-Centered Reference Architecture for Trustworthy Agentic Commerce20 Jul 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Security Threat Modeling for Emerging AI-Agent Protocols: A Comparative Analysis of MCP, A2A, Agora, and ANP
- 2026A Formal Security Framework for MCP-Based AI Agents: Threat Taxonomy, Verification Models, and Defense Mechanisms
- 2026A2ABreak: Systematic Security Analysis of the A2A Protocol ↗
- 2025Security Analysis of Agentic AI Communication Protocols: A Comparative Evaluation
- 2026AIP: Agent Identity Protocol for Verifiable Delegation Across MCP and A2A
- 2026Breaking the Protocol: Security Analysis of the Model Context Protocol Specification and Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Tool-Integrated LLM Agents
- 2025Building A Secure Agentic AI Application Leveraging A2A Protocol
- 2025From Glue-Code to Protocols: A Critical Analysis of A2A and MCP Integration for Scalable Agent Systems