mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Toward Securing AI Agents Like Operating Systems

arXiv 2605.14932 ↗First posted 14 May 2026cs.CRcited by 2

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Autonomous agents based on large language models (LLMs) are rapidly emerging as a general-purpose technology, with recent systems such as OpenClaw extending their capabilities through broad tool use, third-party skills, and deeper integration into user environments. At the same time, these agentic systems introduce substantial security risks by combining unconstrained capabilities with access to sensitive user data. In this work, we investigate the security of LLM-based agents through the lens of operating systems. We argue that both face strikingly similar challenges in isolating resources, separating privileges, and mediating communication. Guided by this perspective, we survey the current landscape of open-source agents, derive a unified agent architecture, and systematically analyze potential attack vectors. To validate this analysis, we conduct a case study evaluating four widely used OpenClaw-like agents. Even under modest attacker capabilities, we find that several protection mechanisms fail in practice and that secure operation requires detailed system knowledge and careful configuration. However, we also observe that while some agentic capabilities remain insecure by design, many vulnerabilities can be mitigated using well-established techniques from operating system security. We conclude with a set of recommendations for the secure design of agentic systems.

Key facts. Cited by 2 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 13 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 May 2026.

Builds on

13 of 62 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
  2. 2024Security of AI Agents12 Jun
  3. 2024IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems8 Mar

Other references · 10

  1. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
  2. 2023Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defensescited by 328
  3. 2024StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queriescited by 325
  4. 2025Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directionscited by 257
  5. 2024Tool Learning with Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 221
  6. 2024SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimizationcited by 179
  7. 2024AI Agents Under Threat: A Survey of Key Security Challenges and Future Pathwayscited by 122
  8. 2024System-Level Defense against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks: An Information Flow Control Perspectivecited by 91
  9. 2024Instructional Segment Embedding: Improving LLM Safety with Instruction Hierarchycited by 62
  10. 2025Enterprise-Grade Security for the Model Context Protocol (MCP): Frameworks and Mitigation Strategiescited by 42

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. 2026A Security Analysis of the OpenClaw AI Agent Framework
  2. 2026Taming OpenClaw: Security Analysis and Mitigation of Autonomous LLM Agent Threats
  3. 2026Security of OpenClaw Agents: Fundamentals, Attacks, and Countermeasures
  4. 2026Clawed and Dangerous: Can We Trust Open Agentic Systems?
  5. 2025Agentic AI Security: Threats, Defenses, Evaluation, and Open Challenges
  6. 2026Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw
  7. 2026Security Attack and Defense Strategies for Autonomous Agent Frameworks: A Layered Review with OpenClaw as a Case Study
  8. 2026AgenticOS: An Intent-Oriented Secure Operating System Architecture for Autonomous AI Agents