# Local LLM Agents as Vulnerable Runtimes:A Source-Code Audit of the Agent Runtime Layer

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.21071 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.21071/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 7 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Jun 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, 7 of 7)

- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [Adaptive Attacks Break Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.00061/) (2025)
- [Agent Skills in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Security Vulnerabilities at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.10338/) (2026)
- [Model Context Protocol (MCP) at First Glance: Studying the Security and Maintainability of MCP Servers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.13538/) (2025)
- [ChatInject: Abusing Chat Templates for Prompt Injection in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.22830/) (2025)
- [SetupBench: Assessing Software Engineering Agents' Ability to Bootstrap Development Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.09063/) (2025)
- [DualGauge: Automated Joint Security-Functionality Benchmarking of Specification-Only Code Generation by LLMs and Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.20709/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Local LLM agents such as OpenClaw and Nanobot run on end-user machines and act on host resources - the shell, filesystem, browser, stored credentials, and messaging applications - through natural-language goals. These agents have become privileged software runtimes that mediate between user intent, model outputs, and host-level actions. Existing research characterizes the landscape through prompt injection, malicious skills, marketplace risks, or black-box evaluation of agents. But the implementation layer that performs this mediation, the prompt builder, parser, tool dispatcher, skill loader, memory writer, network client, and permission gate, has remained an unexamined safety boundary. To our knowledge, no prior work has examined the agent's source tree to audit these components for implementation-level security weaknesses. We present CLAWAUDIT, a static auditing framework for measuring vulnerability exposure in local LLM agent runtimes. CLAWAUDIT derives a five-category vulnerability taxonomy from STRIDE and develops custom static-analysis rules that target agent-specific patterns absent from established rule sets for vulnerability analysis. We instantiate the taxonomy in two backends, 47 Semgrep YAML rules and 30 CodeQL queries, and evaluate on OPENCLAWBENCH, a benchmark of 446 source-code-level advisories from the OpenClaw repository and split temporally into 229 rule-derivation (train) and 217 held-out (test) advisories. On the held-out test, CLAWAUDIT raises Semgrep recall from 21.7% (Pro baseline) to 66.8%, and CodeQL recall from 13.8% (security-extended) to 75.1%. Train/test gaps remain within 4 percentage points for all four configurations, indicating that the rules generalize to vulnerabilities unseen during rule writing. A preliminary live-code audit shows that these recall-oriented rules require manual triage, motivating semantic filtering before production deployment.