mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

One Goal, Many Commands: Characterizing Denylist Fragility in AI Agents

arXiv 2606.15549 ↗First posted 14 Jun 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 1

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

Abstract (arXiv)

The adoption of AI agents is increasing rapidly. Terminal AI agents, i.e., AI agents that run in terminal environments, are a widely used type of AI agents. Terminal AI agents rely heavily on shell command execution to interact with the host systems. They adopt a three-list command-gating mechanism to mitigate security risks introduced by command execution, with denylists serving as the load-bearing component. However, modern operating systems often ship a large, ever-expanding set of shell commands with complex functionalities. Our observation is that even a built-in denylist of Claude Code, well-maintained by its developers, can overlook bypass commands that invalidate its effectiveness. Such negligence leads to fragile command denylists that cannot even block operations that practitioners expect them to block. This paper presents the first systematic characterization of command denylist fragility in terminal AI agents. The paper formalizes the command denylist fragility problem and proposes an LLM-driven pipeline, ShellSieve, to detect such fragility. It prompts the LLM to propose possible bypasses and iteratively repairs them using feedback from a validator that executes them in a sandbox. In the evaluation, we applied ShellSieve to 1,709 real-world command denylists (containing 13,332 denylist rules) collected from GitHub. The evaluation shows several key findings, including that 69.0--98.6% of the denylists are fragile, that this fragility occurs consistently across projects and agents, and the validity of several possible root causes for this fragility. Our pipeline and findings will hopefully facilitate future research and practice regarding the command denylists used by AI agents.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper 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 19 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Jun 2026.

Builds on

19 of 52 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Reframing LLM Agent Security as an Agent-Human Interaction Problem23 May
  2. 2026Taming Various Privilege Escalation in LLM-Based Agent Systems: A Mandatory Access Control Framework17 Jan
  3. 2025Takedown: How It's Done in Modern Coding Agent Exploits29 Sep
  4. 2025"Your AI, My Shell": Demystifying Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic AI Coding Editors26 Sep
  5. 2025Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agents28 Apr
  6. 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control16 Apr
  7. 2024IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems8 Mar

Other references · 12

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
  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. 2026Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfacescited by 515
  6. 2024Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attackscited by 450
  7. 2024LLM Hallucinations in Practical Code Generation: Phenomena, Mechanism, and Mitigationcited by 92
  8. 2025HalluLens: LLM Hallucination Benchmarkcited by 88
  9. 2023LLM in the Shell: Generative Honeypotscited by 19
  10. 2026Terminal-World: Scaling Terminal-Agent Environments via Agent Skillscited by 13
  11. 2026What You Approve Is What Executes: Consent Integrity for Black-Box LLM Agentscited by 9
  12. 2025SoK: Systematizing LLM Prompt Security: Taxonomies, Datasets, and Unified Evaluation of Attacks and Defensescited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026CARE: Pre-Execution Command Verification for Shell-Executing LLM Agents
  2. 2025Your Harness is Not Secure: Benchmarking Real-world Threat of Command Line Interface Agent
  3. 2026Look Before You Leap: Pre-Action Verification for LLM Agents
  4. 2026Toward Securing AI Agents Like Operating Systems
  5. 2026A Security Analysis of the OpenClaw AI Agent Framework
  6. 2026Sandlock: Confining AI Agent Code with Unprivileged Linux Primitives
  7. 2026Measuring the Permission Gate: A Stress-Test Evaluation of Claude Code's Auto Mode
  8. 2026MOSAIC: Knowledge-Guided CLI Command Composition Attack in LLM Coding Agents