mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Trusted Credentials, Untrusted Behavior: Benchmarking LLM-Agent Security in High-Performance Computing

arXiv 2607.18485 ↗First posted 20 Jul 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 3

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model (LLM) agents are starting to take on routine work in high-performance computing (HPC), including monitoring Slurm jobs, diagnosing failed builds, inspecting simulation output, and coordinating scientific workflows. To do this work, an agent commonly acts under its user's credentials and inherits the user's access to files and the scheduler. This arrangement creates a failure mode that ordinary account-level controls do not capture. Adversarial instructions in a log, tool description, shared file, or peer-agent message may redirect the agent beyond the task the user assigned, even though every resulting command is authenticated and permitted for that account. We refer to this as the hijacked authorized agent problem. Existing agent-security studies explain relevant mechanisms, such as indirect prompt injection and tool misuse, but generally evaluate them in web, enterprise, or personal-assistant settings. HPC security, by contrast, has mature controls for identity and isolation but does not ordinarily represent the intent of a particular task. This paper defines the threat model in the HPC setting, identifies attack surfaces created by schedulers, shared storage, multi-project accounts, and scientific workflows, and examines where current controls fall short. It concludes with a research agenda and a plan for an empirical benchmark, TaskBound.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers 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 8 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jul 2026.

Builds on

8 of 18 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026The Landscape of Prompt Injection Threats in LLM Agents: From Taxonomy to Analysis11 Feb
  2. 2025From Prompt Injections to Protocol Exploits: Threats in LLM-Powered AI Agents Workflows29 Jun
  3. 2025Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agents28 Apr
  4. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep

Other references · 4

  1. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
  2. 2025Connecting Large Language Model Agent to High Performance Computing Resourcecited by 3
  3. 2024HPC with Enhanced User Separationcited by 1
  4. 2024Federated Single Sign-On and Zero Trust Co-design for AI and HPC Digital Research Infrastructurescited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Toward Secure LLM Agents: Threat Surfaces, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluation
  2. 2026You Told Me to Do It: Measuring Instructional Text-induced Private Data Leakage in LLM Agents
  3. 2026How Your Credentials Are Leaked by LLM Agent Skills: An Empirical Study
  4. 2026Local LLM Agents as Vulnerable Runtimes:A Source-Code Audit of the Agent Runtime Layer
  5. 2026"Do Not Mention This to the User": Detecting and Understanding Malicious Agent Skills in the Wild
  6. 2025AgentSentinel: An End-to-End and Real-Time Security Defense Framework for Computer-Use Agents
  7. 2026API Secrets Should Never Become Tokens in the LLM's Vocabulary: A Threat Analysis of API Credential Handling in LLM Agent Systems and an Empirical Evaluation of a Vault-Mediated Execution Boundary
  8. 2024Whispers in the Machine: Confidentiality in Agentic Systems