Untrusted Content Masking for Web Agents with Security Guarantees
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Defenses that provide security guarantees against prompt injection attacks rely on strict isolation between trusted instructions and untrusted data. In text-based environments such as tool-use APIs, this separation arises naturally: agents can reason from interface definitions without ever processing untrusted content. Extending these guarantees to web agents faces a fundamental challenge: to perceive and interact with their environment, web agents must first observe the rendered page, which intermingles trusted content with untrusted content. This structural entanglement removes the trust boundary on which security guarantees depend, undermining provable defenses for web agents. In this paper, we present Untrusted Content Masking (UCM), a simple and effective approach that restores this boundary in web environments. We leverage a key structural insight: a webpage's Document Object Model (DOM) encodes sufficient information to distinguish trusted from untrusted regions without reading their content. Our framework exploits this by redacting untrusted regions before they reach the agent and routing interaction through a sandboxed interface with strict privilege separation, thereby enabling agents to observe and interact with their environment while remaining isolated from adversarial content. The code is publicly available.
Key facts. Cited by 3 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 37 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jul 2026.
Builds on
37 of 61 references.
Closest ancestors · 19
Same direction, newest first
- 2026CaMeLs Can Use Computers Too: System-level Security for Computer Use Agents14 Jan
- 2025AgentSentinel: An End-to-End and Real-Time Security Defense Framework for Computer-Use Agents9 Sep
- 2025OS-Harm: A Benchmark for Measuring Safety of Computer Use Agents17 Jun
- 2025Design Patterns for Securing LLM Agents against Prompt Injections10 Jun
- 2025RedTeamCUA: Realistic Adversarial Testing of Computer-Use Agents in Hybrid Web-OS Environments28 May
- 2025WebInject: Prompt Injection Attack to Web Agents16 May
- 2025WASP: Benchmarking Web Agent Security Against Prompt Injection Attacks22 Apr
- 2025DoomArena: A framework for Testing AI Agents Against Evolving Security Threats18 Apr
- 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control16 Apr
- 2025The Obvious Invisible Threat: LLM-Powered GUI Agents' Vulnerability to Fine-Print Injections15 Apr
- 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
- 2025Prompt Flow Integrity to Prevent Privilege Escalation in LLM Agents17 Mar
7 more
- 2025MIP against Agent: Malicious Image Patches Hijacking Multimodal OS Agents13 Mar
- 2025RTBAS: Defending LLM Agents Against Prompt Injection and Privacy Leakage13 Feb
- 2025Commercial LLM Agents Are Already Vulnerable to Simple Yet Dangerous Attacks12 Feb
- 2024Attacking Vision-Language Computer Agents via Pop-ups4 Nov
- 2024AdvAgent: Controllable Blackbox Red-teaming on Web Agents22 Oct
- 2024Dissecting Adversarial Robustness of Multimodal LM Agents18 Jun
- 2024IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems8 Mar
Other references · 18
- 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 2,006
- 2025UI-TARS: Pioneering Automated GUI Interaction with Native Agentscited by 610
- 2024The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructionscited by 493
- 2024StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queriescited by 375
- 2023Are aligned neural networks adversarially aligned?cited by 315
- 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlightingcited by 267
- 2024SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimizationcited by 210
- 2025The Attacker Moves Second: Stronger Adaptive Attacks Bypass Defenses Against Llm Jailbreaks and Prompt Injectionscited by 129
- 2025Securing AI Agents with Information-Flow Controlcited by 121
- 2024System-Level Defense against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks: An Information Flow Control Perspectivecited by 96
- 2024Instructional Segment Embedding: Improving LLM Safety with Instruction Hierarchycited by 67
- 2025ACE: A Security Architecture for LLM-Integrated App Systemscited by 55
6 more
- 2025Defending Against Prompt Injection with DataFiltercited by 35
- 2025ASIDE: Architectural Separation of Instructions and Data in Language Modelscited by 24
- 2025BrowseSafe: Understanding and Preventing Prompt Injection Within AI Browser Agentscited by 24
- 2025ceLLMate: Sandboxing Browser AI Agentscited by 16
- 2026Web Agents Should Adopt the Plan-Then-Execute Paradigmcited by 4
- 2024The Web unpacked: a quantitative analysis of global Web usagecited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Prismata: Confining Cross-Site Prompt Injection in Web Agents
- 2026Out of Sight: Compression-Aware Content Protection against Agentic Crawlers
- 2026WebMCP-Phalanx: Enforcing and Characterizing Trust Boundaries for Browser-Integrated LLM Agents
- 2026Don't Click That: Teaching Web Agents to Resist Deceptive Interfaces
- 2026AgentSecBench: Measuring Prompt Injection, Privacy Leakage, and Tool-Use Integrity in LLM Agents
- 2025Mind the Web: The Security of Web Use Agents
- 2025Context manipulation attacks : Web agents are susceptible to corrupted memory
- 2026MUZZLE: Adaptive Agentic Red-Teaming of Web Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks