mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Security Analysis of the OpenClaw AI Agent Framework

arXiv 2603.27517 ↗First posted 29 Mar 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 5

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

AI agent frameworks connecting large language model (LLM) reasoning to host execution surfaces -- shell, filesystem, containers, and messaging -- introduce security challenges structurally distinct from conventional software. We present a systematic taxonomy of 470 advisories filed against OpenClaw, an open-source AI agent runtime, organized by architectural layer and trust-violation type. Vulnerabilities cluster along two orthogonal axes: (1) the system axis, reflecting the architectural layer (exec policy, gateway, channel, sandbox, browser, plugin, agent/prompt); and (2) the attack axis, reflecting adversarial techniques (identity spoofing, policy bypass, cross-layer composition, prompt injection, supply-chain escalation). Patch-differential evidence yields three principal findings. First, three Moderate- or High-severity advisories in the Gateway and Node-Host subsystems compose into a complete unauthenticated remote code execution (RCE) path -- spanning delivery, exploitation, and command-and-control -- from an LLM tool call to the host process. Second, the exec allowlist, the primary command-filtering mechanism, relies on a closed-world assumption that command identity is recoverable via lexical parsing. This is invalidated by shell line continuation, busybox multiplexing, and GNU option abbreviation. Third, a malicious skill distributed via the plugin channel executed a two-stage dropper within the LLM context, bypassing the exec pipeline and demonstrating that the skill distribution surface lacks runtime policy enforcement. The dominant structural weakness is per-layer trust enforcement rather than unified policy boundaries, making cross-layer attacks resilient to local remediation.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 7 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Mar 2026.

Builds on

7 of 19 references.

References · 7

  1. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
  2. 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 832
  3. 2024StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queriescited by 375
  4. 2025DataSentinel: A Game-Theoretic Detection of Prompt Injection Attackscited by 143
  5. 2023Universal Jailbreak Backdoors from Poisoned Human Feedbackcited by 128
  6. 2025PromptArmor: Simple yet Effective Prompt Injection Defensescited by 108
  7. 2025PromptSleuth: Detecting Prompt Injection via Semantic Intent Invariancecited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.

5 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Taming OpenClaw: Security Analysis and Mitigation of Autonomous LLM Agent Threats
  2. 2026Security of OpenClaw Agents: Fundamentals, Attacks, and Countermeasures
  3. 2026Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw
  4. 2026Toward Securing AI Agents Like Operating Systems
  5. 2026OpenClaw PRISM: A Zero-Fork, Defense-in-Depth Runtime Security Layer for Tool-Augmented LLM Agents
  6. 2026Security Attack and Defense Strategies for Autonomous Agent Frameworks: A Layered Review with OpenClaw as a Case Study
  7. 2026Clawed and Dangerous: Can We Trust Open Agentic Systems?
  8. 2026Security Engineering of OpenClaw: Analyzing Attack Surface Expansion and Trust-Boundary Violations