mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Stochastic Deputy: Structural Tenant Isolation for Tool-Using LLM Agents

arXiv 2609.14780 ↗First posted 13 Sep 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.DBcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-tenant tools commonly accept a tenant identifier and validate it against the caller's entitlement. For a large language model (LLM) agent, that pattern delegates resource selection to a process whose context may contain attacker controlled instructions. We formalize this stochastic deputy problem and present a structural defense: remove tenant identity from the Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool schema, bind scope to a verified credential, and enforce it below the agent. In a 373-trial ablation across eight model configurations and two transports, a correctly validated tenant parameter served every out-of-scope attempt: 26 of 26, or 26 of 41 plausible-pretext trials overall. With the parameter removed, no tool signature could express the read. Twelve of 56 trials instead escaped the interface by forging writable scope, showing that interface invariance requires cryptographically protected context. On a production dataset containing multiple GBs of data, set-valued scope caused a measured 57× latency ratio under function-wrapped membership predicates; a JSONTABLE lateral join recovered index access where the tenant key was indexed. The evaluation also exposes deployment limits, including an entitlement-size query-planner cliff and incomplete index coverage. The result is a tenant-isolation argument that depends on enforceable interfaces and credentials rather than model compliance.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 3 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Sep 2026.

Builds on

3 of 30 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar

Other references · 2

  1. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
  2. 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 760

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026SecureClaw: Clawing Back Control of LLM Agents
  2. 2026Capability Gates Are Not Authorization: Confused-Deputy Failures in LLM Agent Frameworks
  3. 2025MiniScope: A Least Privilege Framework for Authorizing Tool Calling Agents
  4. 2025MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM Agents
  5. 2026Beyond Aggregate Risk: Role-Stratified Conformal Risk Control for LLM Tool Calls
  6. 2026Prompts Don't Protect: Architectural Enforcement via MCP Proxy for LLM Tool Access Control
  7. 2026ChainCaps: Composition-Safe Tool-Using Agents via Monotonic Capability Attenuation
  8. 2026Beyond Max Tokens: Stealthy Resource Amplification via Tool Calling Chains in LLM Agents