mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Formal Analysis of Agent Payment Protocols

arXiv 2609.00060 ↗First posted 30 Aug 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Agent payment protocols are emerging as a key transaction layer for autonomous commerce, enabling AI agents to purchase goods and services and execute payments on users' behalf. Unlike conventional payment flows, they distribute user intent, delegated authority, credential use, settlement, and fulfillment across multiple actors and stages, creating security dependencies that no single message or participant can enforce. Yet these guarantees remain largely implicit across evolving specifications, schemas, and reference implementations, with little systematic formal analysis. We formalize four representative agent payment protocols: x402, MPP, ACP, and AP2 in Tamarin. Using a common abstraction of the agent payment lifecycle, we construct source-grounded models that capture each protocol's roles, state, trust assumptions, and lifecycle transitions. Rather than assuming a complete property taxonomy, we use source-backed verification questions and counterexample traces to expose missing bindings, state constraints, and cross-stage correspondences, consolidating them into 18 shared security principles. Across 86 verification cases, our analysis reproduces 46 known or calibration cases and identifies 40 previously undocumented formal-consistency findings. For each retained violation, we isolate the missing protocol relation, construct a minimally strengthened reference model, and reverify the intended property. We further evaluate the new x402 findings across three implementations and validate ten representative findings through implementation PoCs, SDK/schema-level witnesses, and source-aligned executable traces spanning five security principles. Our results show that delegated authorization must remain consistent with its resulting economic and service effects across actors, states, and protocol stages.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Aug 2026.

Builds on

15 of 37 references.

References · 15

  1. 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 2,006
  2. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
  3. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,267
  4. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agentscited by 538
  5. 2025What Is Your AI Agent Buying? Evaluation, Biases, Model Dependence, & Emerging Implications for Agentic E-Commercecited by 22
  6. 2026SoK: Security of Autonomous LLM Agents in Agentic Commercecited by 8
  7. 2018A Formal Analysis of 5G Authenticationcited by 7
  8. 2026Zero-Trust Runtime Verification for Agentic Payment Protocols: Mitigating Replay and Context-Binding Failures in AP2cited by 6
  9. 2026A402: Binding Cryptocurrency Payments to Service Execution for Agentic Commercecited by 6
  10. 2026Free-Riding the Agentic Web: A Systematic Security Analysis of x402 Paymentscited by 5
  11. 2026Five Attacks on x402 Agentic Payment Protocolcited by 4
  12. 2026When HTTP 402 Meets the Blockchain: Risks on Emerging x402 Paymentscited by 3
3 more
  1. 2026How Agentic Is Agentic Commerce? A Population-Scale Measurement of x402 Adoption and Authenticitycited by 2
  2. 2026Protocol-Level Attacks on Agentic Commerce Platforms: A Cross-Platform Taxonomy, AIP-Bench, and Unified Defensecited by 2
  3. 2020The EMV Standard: Break, Fix, Verifycited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.