mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Containment Gap: How Deployed Agentic AI Frameworks Fail Public-Facing Safety Requirements

arXiv 2606.12797 ↗First posted 11 Jun 2026cs.AIcited by 1

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic large language model systems that autonomously invoke tools, maintain persistent memory, and execute multi-step plans are increasingly deployed in public-facing domains, including government services, healthcare triage, and financial advising. We ask whether the frameworks used to build these systems provide architectural-level structural safety guarantees. Applying six containment principles derived from a compositional model of agentic architectures, we audit three dominant frameworks (LangChain, AutoGPT, and OpenAI Agents SDK) and find no native compliance in any of them. Memory integrity, a defense against one of the most prevalent vulnerability classes, is not observed in any of the three evaluated frameworks. We validate these findings empirically: in a simulated government benefits agent built on LangChain, a single memory-poisoning write induces persistent targeted corruption across all tested seeds and backends, increasing the wrongful denial rate for targeted applicants to 88.9%. Under a complex five-factor policy, the same attack preserves aggregate accuracy while increasing targeted wrongful denials by 3.5x, rendering the corruption difficult to detect through standard monitoring. We then introduce two lightweight containment mechanisms: a memory integrity validator and a policy gate, which eliminate both attack vectors with sub-millisecond overhead (<0.2ms per call). We conclude that the current agentic framework ecosystem may not yet meet secure-by-default expectations for public-facing deployments and outline priority architectural interventions to enable trustworthy deployment in high-stakes, socially impactful applications.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper 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 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2026.

Builds on

13 of 19 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Systems Security Foundations for Agentic Computing1 Dec
  2. 2025Hiding in the AI Traffic: Abusing MCP for LLM-Powered Agentic Red Teaming20 Nov
  3. 2025From Prompt Injections to Protocol Exploits: Threats in LLM-Powered AI Agents Workflows29 Jun
  4. 2025TRiSM for Agentic AI: A Review of Trust, Risk, and Security Management in LLM-based Agentic Multi-Agent Systems4 Jun
  5. 2025Comprehensive Vulnerability Analysis is Necessary for Trustworthy LLM-MAS2 Jun
  6. 2025Multi-Agent Systems Execute Arbitrary Malicious Code15 Mar
  7. 2024The Emerged Security and Privacy of LLM Agent: A Survey with Case Studies28 Jul

Other references · 6

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  2. 2024TheAgentCompany: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Consequential Real World Taskscited by 326
  3. 2024The Landscape of Emerging AI Agent Architectures for Reasoning, Planning, and Tool Calling: A Surveycited by 168
  4. 2024AI Agents Under Threat: A Survey of Key Security Challenges and Future Pathwayscited by 127
  5. 2025From Human Memory to AI Memory: A Survey on Memory Mechanisms in the Era of LLMscited by 124
  6. 2025Real AI Agents with Fake Memories: Fatal Context Manipulation Attacks on Web3 Agentscited by 24

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026When the Agent Is the Adversary: Architectural Requirements for Agentic AI Containment After the April 2026 Frontier Model Escape
  2. 2026Agent-Fence: Mapping Security Vulnerabilities Across Deep Research Agents
  3. 2026Securing Agentic AI: From Per-Action Checks to Trajectory Assurance
  4. 2026Towards trustworthy agentic AI: a comprehensive survey of safety, robustness, privacy, and system security
  5. 2026Containment Verification: AI Safety Guarantees Independent of Alignment
  6. 2026Boiling the Frog: A Multi-Turn Benchmark for Agentic Safety
  7. 2026The Misattribution Gap: When Memory Poisoning Looks Like Model Failure in Agentic AI Systems
  8. 2026Tool Specifications Matter: Uncovering and Mitigating Safety Risks in AI Agents