mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AIRGuard: Guarding Agent Actions with Runtime Authority Control

arXiv 2605.28914 ↗First posted 27 May 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 9

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-using language agents turn model decisions into external side effects: they read files, run scripts, call APIs, send messages, and invoke Model Context Protocol tools. This makes agent attacks different from jailbreaks. The harmful step is often not an obviously forbidden output, but an ordinary executable action that becomes unsafe because attacker-controlled context steers authorized access against the user's interest. We identify this failure mode as authority confusion: untrusted resources may inform reasoning, but they must not authorize side effects. We present AIRGuard, a runtime guard that operationalizes least privilege as action-time authorization. AIRGuard normalizes heterogeneous tool calls, derives task authority into step-level authority, tracks source and target trust, simulates sensitive side effects, audits cross-step risk, and enforces decisions before actions execute. On AgentTrap, AIRGuard reduces Sonnet 4.6 attack success from 36.3% without defense to 5.5%. On DTAP-150, AIRGuard preserves 76.0% benign utility with Haiku 4.5, compared with 52.0% for ARGUS and 42.0% for MELON. An ablation further shows that prompt-only policy helps only modestly, whereas a dedicated runtime authority-control layer gives the agent system direct control over tool-mediated side effects. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Sophie508/AIRGuard.

Key facts. Cited by 9 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 22 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.

Builds on

22 of 30 references.

Closest ancestors · 17

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026AgentTrap: Measuring Runtime Trust Failures in Third-Party Agent Skills13 May
  2. 2026AgentTrust: Runtime Safety Evaluation and Interception for AI Agent Tool Use6 May
  3. 2026ARGUS: Defending LLM Agents Against Context-Aware Prompt Injection5 May
  4. 2026Enforcing Benign Trajectories: A Behavioral Firewall for Structured-Workflow AI Agents29 Apr
  5. 2026SafeAgent: A Runtime Protection Architecture for Agentic Systems19 Apr
  6. 2026ClawGuard: A Runtime Security Framework for Tool-Augmented LLM Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection13 Apr
  7. 2026AttriGuard: Defeating Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents via Causal Attribution of Tool Invocations11 Mar
  8. 2026Skill-Inject: Measuring Agent Vulnerability to Skill File Attacks23 Feb
  9. 2025MCP-SafetyBench: A Benchmark for Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models with Real-World MCP Servers17 Dec
  10. 2025MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM Agents14 Oct
  11. 2025MCPSecBench: A Systematic Security Benchmark and Playground for Testing Model Context Protocols17 Aug
  12. 2025Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agents28 Apr
5 more
  1. 2025ShieldAgent: Shielding Agents via Verifiable Safety Policy Reasoning26 Mar
  2. 2025AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents24 Mar
  3. 2025RTBAS: Defending LLM Agents Against Prompt Injection and Privacy Leakage13 Feb
  4. 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents11 Oct
  5. 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents3 Oct

Other references · 5

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  2. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
  3. 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,565
  4. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
  5. 2026Indirect Prompt Injection in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Prevalence, Techniques, and Objectivescited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 9.

9 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026ActGuard: Pre-execution Action Auditing against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents
  2. 2026ActionGuard: Tool Call Authorization under Poisoned Skills
  3. 2025AgentGuard: Repurposing Agentic Orchestrator for Safety Evaluation of Tool Orchestration
  4. 2026AgentVisor: Defending LLM Agents Against Prompt Injection via Semantic Virtualization
  5. 2025Who Grants the Agent Power? Defending Against Instruction Injection via Task-Centric Access Control
  6. 2026ToolGuardian: Declarative Security for AI Agent-Tool Interactions
  7. 2026ActGov: Governing LLM Agent Actions via Policy-Constrained Validation
  8. 2026AgentGuard: An Attribute-Based Access Control Framework for Tool-Use LLM-Based Agent