It Lied to a Doctor to Buy Poison Ingredients: Quantifying Real-World Misuse of Phone-use Agents
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Phone-use Agents can execute complex tasks end to end across real mobile applications. By operating a real device on the user's behalf, they reach far more functionalities than CLI agents, which amplifies the real-world harm they can cause when driven for malicious purposes. We present the first study of this threat on real phones and 27 commercial apps, and find that agents built on 9 mainstream commercial and open-source models readily carry out serious misuse, ranging from procuring drug and explosive precursors to fraud, online harassment, and review manipulation. Across the agents we run on real devices, the average refusal rate to harmful requests stays low while the average task-completion rate reaches 68.8%, and in some scenarios an agent finishes a violation faster than a human would. These results suggest that Phone-use Agents already meet the practical conditions for automated misuse at scale. In one observed real-device execution, Claude-Opus-4.8 fabricated a medical history, deceived an online doctor into issuing a prescription, and completed the order and payment on its own to purchase a precursor for a highly toxic substance. To our knowledge, this is the first documented real-world case of an AI agent procuring controlled precursor materials. We trace this behavior to a Safety Awareness-Execution Gap, where an agent recognizes that a request is harmful yet still executes it. Simple defenses curb the overt cases, but the more covert and arguably more damaging threats, such as coordinated review manipulation and fake traffic, remain largely unsolved. We hope these findings push the community toward safer Phone-use Agents.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jun 2026.
Builds on
30 of 37 references.
References · 30
- 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,154
- 2025DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Modelscited by 815
- 2023CogAgent: A Visual Language Model for GUI Agentscited by 704
- 2021Efficient Large-Scale Language Model Training on GPU Clusters Using Megatron-LMcited by 632
- 2025UI-TARS: Pioneering Automated GUI Interaction with Native Agentscited by 610
- 2024SeeClick: Harnessing GUI Grounding for Advanced Visual GUI Agentscited by 567
- 2024AndroidWorld: A Dynamic Benchmarking Environment for Autonomous Agentscited by 468
- 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agentscited by 437
- 2024GUIOdyssey: A Comprehensive Dataset for Cross-App GUI Navigation on Mobile Devicescited by 194
- 2025Mobile-Agent-v3: Fundamental Agents for GUI Automationcited by 190
- 2024Language Models are Homer Simpson! Safety Re-Alignment of Fine-tuned Language Models through Task Arithmeticcited by 112
- 2025OS-Harm: A Benchmark for Measuring Safety of Computer Use Agentscited by 111
18 more
- 2024AutoGLM: Autonomous Foundation Agents for GUIscited by 100
- 2025NaturalReasoning: Reasoning in the Wild with 2.8M Challenging Questionscited by 84
- 2024SPA-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for SmartPhone Agent Evaluationcited by 81
- 2026Mobile-Agent-v3.5: Multi-platform Fundamental GUI Agentscited by 79
- 2025MobileWorld: Benchmarking Autonomous Mobile Agents in Agent-User Interactive and MCP-Augmented Environmentscited by 72
- 2026Emotion Concepts and their Function in a Large Language Modelcited by 57
- 2024MobileSafetyBench: Evaluating Safety of Autonomous Agents in Mobile Device Controlcited by 51
- 2025VPI-Bench: Visual Prompt Injection Attacks for Computer-Use Agentscited by 45
- 2025Evaluating the Robustness of Multimodal Agents Against Active Environmental Injection Attackscited by 22
- 2025OS-Sentinel: Towards Safety-Enhanced Mobile GUI Agents via Hybrid Validation in Realistic Workflowscited by 19
- 2025SafeMobile: Chain-level Jailbreak Detection and Automated Evaluation for Multimodal Mobile Agentscited by 15
- 2024ChatTracker: Enhancing Visual Tracking Performance via Chatting with Multimodal Large Language Modelcited by 12
- 2025GhostEI-Bench: Do Mobile Agents Resilience to Environmental Injection in Dynamic On-Device Environments?cited by 12
- 2025SmartSight: Mitigating Hallucination in Video-LLMs Without Compromising Video Understanding via Temporal Attention Collapsecited by 9
- 2025MVISU-Bench: Benchmarking Mobile Agents for Real-World Tasks by Multi-App, Vague, Interactive, Single-App and Unethical Instructionscited by 7
- 2025LaSM: Layer-wise Scaling Mechanism for Defending Pop-up Attack on GUI Agentscited by 6
- 2025Mobile GUI Agents under Real-world Threats: Are We There Yet?cited by 5
- 2026Turing Test on Screen: A Benchmark for Mobile GUI Agent Humanizationcited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026ADeptS-Bench: Measuring the Trustworthiness of Computer Use Agents Across Devices
- 2026The Blind Spot of Agent Safety: How Benign User Instructions Expose Critical Vulnerabilities in Computer-Use Agents
- 2026MobileWorldSafety: Benchmarking GUI Agent Safety Against Environmental Injection Attacks in Android Apps
- 2026AgentHazard: A Benchmark for Evaluating Harmful Behavior in Computer-Use Agents
- 2026Do Phone-Use Agents Respect Your Privacy?
- 2026A Translational Note on AI Safety Evaluation
- 2025SafeArena: Evaluating the Safety of Autonomous Web Agents
- 2026I must delete the evidence: AI Agents Explicitly Cover up Fraud and Violent Crime