mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Security Engineering of OpenClaw: Analyzing Attack Surface Expansion and Trust-Boundary Violations

arXiv 2606.15008 ↗First posted 12 Jun 2026cs.CRcited by 2

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic large language model (LLM) systems can now execute actions, not only produce text. When model outputs trigger privileged operations such as shell commands, browser automation, or external tool calls, the security problem shifts from alignment alone to system configuration and structural design. We analyze OpenClaw, a self-hosted multi-agent system in which LLM outputs can execute commands and interact with tools and services. We measure compromise probability, boundary failures, privilege drift, and how these metrics change as attacker capability increases. With one agent, the compromise probability is 0.24. With seven agents, when the system executes an action, the compromise rises to 0.86 if any single agent proposes it. The models do not change; the increase comes from output aggregation. Prompt injection propagates instability across the system. Attack surface entropy increases from 0.42 to 0.71, indicating a broader distribution of exploit paths. The mean privilege drift increases from 0.03 to 0.21, indicating unintended authority gain. Positive escalation curvature of 0.08 indicates that privilege grows faster as attacker capability increases. Defensive controls, including policy gating and execution filtering, reduce compromise probability by 0.10, boundary failures by 0.10, and privilege drift by 0.02, all statistically significant at p < 0.0001. The system remains sensitive, but the mitigation impact is measurable. Injection mitigation success differs across models: 0.37 for GPT-5.2, 0.35 for Llama-4-Maverick, and 0.31 for DeepSeek-R1. When execution can be triggered by any single agent, the most vulnerable agent determines system exposure. Mitigations slightly reduce task utility from 0.93 to 0.89 and increase median latency from 420 ms to 468 ms.

Key facts. Cited by 2 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. First posted on arXiv 12 Jun 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 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. 2026A Security Analysis of the OpenClaw AI Agent Framework
  4. 2026Toward Secure LLM Agents: Threat Surfaces, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluation
  5. 2026SecureClaw: Clawing Back Control of LLM Agents
  6. 2026Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw
  7. 2026Clawed and Dangerous: Can We Trust Open Agentic Systems?
  8. 2026Toward Securing AI Agents Like Operating Systems