# Toward Securing AI Agents Like Operating Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14932 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.14932/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 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.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06363/) (2024)
- [Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12815/) (2023)
- [Defeating Prompt Injections by Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18813/) (2025)
- [Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.23278/) (2025)
- [Tool Learning with Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.17935/) (2024)
- [SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05451/) (2024)
- [IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04960/) (2024)
- [AI Agents Under Threat: A Survey of Key Security Challenges and Future Pathways](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.02630/) (2024)
- [System-Level Defense against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks: An Information Flow Control Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.19091/) (2024)
- [Instructional Segment Embedding: Improving LLM Safety with Instruction Hierarchy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.09102/) (2024)
- [Enterprise-Grade Security for the Model Context Protocol (MCP): Frameworks and Mitigation Strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08623/) (2025)
- [Security of AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08689/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [From Chatbot to Digital Colleague: The Paradigm Shift Toward Persistent Autonomous AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.14502/) (2026)
- [Model-Native Computing Architecture: Envisioning Future System Architecture Through the Lens of Computer Architecture](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.00288/) (2026)
- [Token-Flow Firewall: Semantic Runtime Auditing for Persistent AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.08395/) (2026)
- [When the Agent Becomes the Kernel: A Systematization of Security on the Path to AI-Native Operating Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.23700/) (2026)
- [L3M: A Verifiable Harness and Runtime for Self-Extending and Self-Improving Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.19591/) (2026)

## 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.