SIR: Self-improving Red-teaming for Compute Use Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
also in 2 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Computer-use agents (CUAs) are agents powered by vision-language models (VLMs) that perceive a screen and operate an operating system through mouse, keyboard, and terminal interactions to automate everyday digital tasks. Their exposure to untrusted content creates a risk of indirect prompt injection (IPI), where an adversary embeds instructions in content the agent reads to redirect it toward actions that violate the user's intent. Evaluations based on fixed, hand-written injections may underestimate the risk posed by adaptive adversaries. We present SIR, a black-box self-improving IPI framework that (i) composes task-specific injections from a small library of reusable red-teaming principles stated in plain language and (ii) uses an iterative feedback loop to analyze unsuccessful attack trajectories and distill new, named principles that are retained in a shared library and reused across tasks. We target operating-system-level compromise and evaluate outcomes through deterministic checks on filesystem, service, and permission state rather than an LLM judge. An attack counts as successful only when both the adversarial objective and the benign user task are completed in the same execution. We evaluate three frontier CUAs, allowing SIR up to 10 attack attempts per case. It achieves joint attack success rates of 24% on Claude Opus 4.8 and 28% on Gemini 3.5 Flash, compared with 4% and 0%, respectively, for the benchmark's fixed, hand-written injection. The red-teaming principles discovered against one victim also improve attacks against other victims, including a different model family, without additional feedback.
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 32 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2026.
Builds on
32 of 39 references.
Closest ancestors · 13
Same direction, newest first
- 2026StepJack: Benchmarking Computer-Use Agent Safety Against Multi-Step Indirect Prompt Injection6 Aug
- 2026IterInject: Indirect Prompt Injection Against LLM Agents via Feedback-Guided Iterative Optimization23 May
- 2026MUZZLE: Adaptive Agentic Red-Teaming of Web Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks9 Feb
- 2025CoP: Agentic Red-teaming for Large Language Models using Composition of Principles1 Jun
- 2025RedTeamCUA: Realistic Adversarial Testing of Computer-Use Agents in Hybrid Web-OS Environments28 May
- 2025EVA: Evolving Semantic Adversaries for Red-Teaming GUI Agents Against Environmental Injection Attacks20 May
- 2025WASP: Benchmarking Web Agent Security Against Prompt Injection Attacks22 Apr
- 2025Adaptive Attacks Break Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Agents27 Feb
- 2024Attacking Vision-Language Computer Agents via Pop-ups4 Nov
- 2024AdvAgent: Controllable Blackbox Red-teaming on Web Agents22 Oct
- 2024EIA: Environmental Injection Attack on Generalist Web Agents for Privacy Leakage17 Sep
- 2024Dissecting Adversarial Robustness of Multimodal LM Agents18 Jun
1 more
Other references · 19
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
- 2023Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Modelscited by 2,191
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
- 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queriescited by 1,420
- 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,195
- 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 832
- 2023Tree of Attacks: Jailbreaking Black-Box LLMs Automaticallycited by 672
- 2024How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMscited by 573
- 2023GPTFUZZER: Red Teaming Large Language Models with Auto-Generated Jailbreak Promptscited by 560
- 2020On Adaptive Attacks to Adversarial Example Defensescited by 555
- 2024Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attackscited by 486
7 more
- 2024Automated Design of Agentic Systemscited by 407
- 2023Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defensescited by 364
- 2024AutoDAN-Turbo: A Lifelong Agent for Strategy Self-Exploration to Jailbreak LLMscited by 199
- 2024Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessmentcited by 126
- 2024Operationalizing a Threat Model for Red-Teaming Large Language Models (LLMs)cited by 46
- 2025AutoRedTeamer: Autonomous Red Teaming with Lifelong Attack Integrationcited by 43
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey of Agents for Computer Use: Foundations, Challenges, and Future Directionscited by 34
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Domain-Conditioned Safety in Frontier Computer-Using Agents: A 793-Episode Browser Benchmark, a Coding-Domain Cross-Reference, and a Reproducibility Audit of Recent Red-Teaming
- 2025A Systematization of Security Vulnerabilities in Computer Use Agents
- 2026The Blind Spot of Agent Safety: How Benign User Instructions Expose Critical Vulnerabilities in Computer-Use Agents
- 2025Red-Teaming Coding Agents from a Tool-Invocation Perspective: An Empirical Security Assessment
- 2026Architecting Secure AI Agents: Perspectives on System-Level Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks
- 2026Invisible Ink Threats: Adversarial Goals Behind Legitimate Tasks in Computer-Use Agents
- 2026PI-Hunter: Automated Red-Teaming for Exposing and Localizing Prompt Injections
- 2026CaMeLs Can Use Computers Too: System-level Security for Computer Use Agents