Understanding and Evaluating Claw-like Agent Security Through a Computer-Systems Lens
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Claw-like AI agents (e.g., OpenClaw) are always-on processes with persistent access to credentials, files, tools, and external services. They take on system-level responsibilities -- installing packages, maintaining state, scheduling subtasks, and mediating I/O -- making security failures far more severe than in other agents. Yet existing benchmarks focus on model responses and tool calls, leaving cross-component failure modes largely unmeasured. We adopt a computer-system analogy: treating a Claw-like agent as an agentic computer system whose gateway runtime plays an OS-like mediation role, whose Skills resemble user-installed applications, and whose Plugins resemble loadable extensions with runtime privileges. Each component has a classical counterpart whose protection mechanisms -- refined over decades of cybersecurity research -- are absent on the agent side. From this perspective, we develop SafeClawArena, a benchmark of 406 adversarial tasks across four attack surfaces (Skill Supply-Chain Integrity, Persistent State Exploitation, Cross-Boundary Data Flow, and Indirect Prompt Injection), executed in containerized replicas of real agent platforms with canary-marked credentials and evaluated via automated taint tracking across nine output channels. We evaluate three platforms (OpenClaw, NemoClaw, SeClaw) and five frontier LLMs. The highest attack success rate reaches 70%; malicious Plugins succeed in 100% of cases regardless of the LLM. SeClaw cuts GPT-5.4's attack success rate from 70% to 22%, partly through utility-security tradeoffs rather than active defenses, while Claude-Opus-4.6 already sits near a 22% floor on every platform. These results expose the inadequacy of current defenses and suggest directions for future hardening. Code and data: https://github.com/sunblaze-ucb/SafeClawArena.
Key facts. Cited by 5 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. Builds on 21 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2026.
Builds on
21 of 37 references.
Closest ancestors · 15
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Securing LLM Agents Need Intent-to-Execution Integrity16 May
- 2026ClawSafety: "Safe" LLMs, Unsafe Agents1 Apr
- 2026The Attack and Defense Landscape of Agentic AI: A Comprehensive Survey11 Mar
- 2026The Landscape of Prompt Injection Threats in LLM Agents: From Taxonomy to Analysis11 Feb
- 2026Breaking the Protocol: Security Analysis of the Model Context Protocol Specification and Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Tool-Integrated LLM Agents24 Jan
- 2026Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic Coding Assistants: A Systematic Analysis of Vulnerabilities in Skills, Tools, and Protocol Ecosystems24 Jan
- 2025SecureWebArena: A Holistic Security Evaluation Benchmark for LVLM-based Web Agents11 Oct
- 2025MCP Safety Audit: LLMs with the Model Context Protocol Allow Major Security Exploits2 Apr
- 2025SafeArena: Evaluating the Safety of Autonomous Web Agents6 Mar
- 2024Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents19 Dec
- 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents11 Oct
- 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents3 Oct
3 more
Other references · 6
- 2024The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructionscited by 493
- 2025Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directionscited by 265
- 2025Deep Research: A Survey of Autonomous Research Agentscited by 66
- 2026A Trajectory-Based Safety Audit of Clawdbot (OpenClaw)cited by 16
- 2026A Systematic Security Evaluation of OpenClaw and Its Variantscited by 13
- 2026From Model Scaling to System Scaling: Scaling the Harness in Agentic AIcited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026HarnessSafe: Evaluating Safety Across Persistent Carriers in Agent Harnessescited by 3
- 2026MAPLE-Guard: Memory-Aware Link Enforcement Against Memory-Link Poisoning in Multi-Agent Systemscited by 0
- 2026A Blind Trust, the Bloody Thrust: When Attacker-Controlled Hook Updates Steer AI Agent Harnesses towards Malicious Behaviorscited by 0
- 2026WolfSociety: Understanding Collective Risk from Harmful-Agent Scaling in Financial Agent Societiescited by 0
- 2026When the Agent Becomes the Kernel: A Systematization of Security on the Path to AI-Native Operating Systemscited by 0
- 2026When the Agent Becomes the Kernel: A Systematization of Security on the Path to AI-Native Operating Systems20 Sep 2026
- 2026WolfSociety: Understanding Collective Risk from Harmful-Agent Scaling in Financial Agent Societies4 Sep 2026
- 2026A Blind Trust, the Bloody Thrust: When Attacker-Controlled Hook Updates Steer AI Agent Harnesses towards Malicious Behaviors3 Sep 2026
- 2026HarnessSafe: Evaluating Safety Across Persistent Carriers in Agent Harnesses7 Aug 2026
- 2026MAPLE-Guard: Memory-Aware Link Enforcement Against Memory-Link Poisoning in Multi-Agent Systems1 Aug 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw
- 2026ClawLess: A Security Model of AI Agents
- 2026Clawed and Dangerous: Can We Trust Open Agentic Systems?
- 2026Toward Securing AI Agents Like Operating Systems
- 2026A Security Analysis of the OpenClaw AI Agent Framework
- 2026ClawSentry: A Progressive Multi-Tier Security Monitor for Safeguarding Autonomous LLM Agents
- 2026CaMeLs Can Use Computers Too: System-level Security for Computer Use Agents
- 2026Your Agent, Their Asset: A Real-World Safety Analysis of OpenClaw