mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Beyond Direct Access: Resource Hijacking in LLM Agents

arXiv 2608.15108 ↗First posted 15 Aug 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model agents are increasingly connected to high-value resources, including external APIs, GPUs and servers, and workflows such as deployment and approval. Existing agent security research mainly focuses on attacks against information and agent behavior, while high-value resources have received less attention as attack targets themselves. To our knowledge, we are the first to identify and systematically study agent resource hijacking, in which attackers induce agents to use high-value resources for their own goals without directly obtaining those resources or their credentials. We introduce ResourceHijackBench, an executable benchmark and automated case-generation pipeline that covers six categories of high-value resources. It contains 300 attack scenarios and 900 attack prompts, and each case runs in an isolated local environment that records actual resource use. Resource hijacking remains effective across four model backends, with average attack success rates of 70.0% to 89.6%, and it also appears across two agent harnesses, with average ASRs of 84.1% on OpenClaw and 72.3% on Codex. In paired comparisons, resource hijacking achieves ASRs 62.4 to 84.0 percentage points higher than direct resource acquisition across the four model backends. Real-world experiments also demonstrate the practical effectiveness of resource hijacking. Among the three existing defenses we evaluate, the lowest average ASR is still 55.1%. We further propose ResGate, a pre-execution resource authorization defense that combines model-based resource-use extraction with deterministic policy enforcement based on trusted requester identity metadata, reducing the average ASR on OpenClaw to 23.6%. These results show that preventing direct access alone is not enough to protect resources that agents can still use on an attacker's behalf, and that explicit resource authorization can help reduce this risk.

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 15 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Aug 2026.

Builds on

15 of 20 references.

Closest ancestors · 11

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Trusted Credentials, Untrusted Behavior: Benchmarking LLM-Agent Security in High-Performance Computing20 Jul
  2. 2026When Lower Privileges Suffice: Investigating Over-Privileged Tool Selection in LLM Agents18 Jun
  3. 2026OTora: A Unified Red Teaming Framework for Reasoning-Level Denial-of-Service in LLM Agents9 May
  4. 2026Taming Various Privilege Escalation in LLM-Based Agent Systems: A Mandatory Access Control Framework17 Jan
  5. 2026Beyond Max Tokens: Stealthy Resource Amplification via Tool Calling Chains in LLM Agents16 Jan
  6. 2026ToolSafe: Enhancing Tool Invocation Safety of LLM-based agents via Proactive Step-level Guardrail and Feedback15 Jan
  7. 2024Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents19 Dec
  8. 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents11 Oct
  9. 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents3 Oct
  10. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar
  11. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep

Other references · 4

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  2. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,182
  3. 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIscited by 1,947
  4. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,267

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Taming OpenClaw: Security Analysis and Mitigation of Autonomous LLM Agent Threats
  2. 2025LeechHijack: Covert Computational Resource Exploitation in Intelligent Agent Systems
  3. 2026Toward Secure LLM Agents: Threat Surfaces, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluation
  4. 2026Exploiting LLM Agent Supply Chains via Payload-less Skills
  5. 2025Les Dissonances: Cross-Tool Harvesting and Polluting in Pool-of-Tools Empowered LLM Agents
  6. 2025Commercial LLM Agents Are Already Vulnerable to Simple Yet Dangerous Attacks
  7. 2026Security of OpenClaw Agents: Fundamentals, Attacks, and Countermeasures
  8. 2026Security Engineering of OpenClaw: Analyzing Attack Surface Expansion and Trust-Boundary Violations