Ajar: Measuring Open Privilege in Agent Defenses
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
A language model agent acts through the tools it is given. The data it reads while working on a task can redirect what it does with those tools. A growing set of techniques for safe and secure agent execution therefore sits between the agent and its tools, aiming to enforce access control, information flow or isolation at that boundary. Today these techniques are evaluated on agent-security benchmarks built around indirect prompt injection. Those benchmarks judge a defense by how far it brings the number of successful attacks down while preserving the agent's utility. A defense is judged only on the agent's execution. It can score well on both metrics while holding open a transfer, a deletion or a broad read that no task needed. Ajar measures that open privilege directly using the existing benchmarks. It attaches to an agent-security benchmark that already exists and reuses the tasks, tool schemas, reference solutions and goal states that benchmark uses to grade its own runs. For each benign task it builds candidate tool calls the task does not need, so allowing one is privilege left open. These calls are presented to the defense at every point where the agent could act. We evaluate Ajar by attaching it to AgentDojo, where open privilege becomes a third axis beside the existing attack success and benign utility. We run it on five defenses: Progent, CaMeL, AC4A, Permission Assistant, and Claude Code's Auto mode. We observed that they leave widely different amounts of privilege open. Two defenses leak by almost the same amount yet differ widely in the benign tasks they finish, and one defense buys part of its tightness by refusing calls its tasks were entitled to make. This open privilege cannot be derived from the measured attack success or benign utility. The source code of Ajar is available at https://github.com/reSHARMA/Ajar.
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 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Sep 2026.
Builds on
32 of 58 references.
Closest ancestors · 12
Same direction, newest first
- 2026When Lower Privileges Suffice: Investigating Over-Privileged Tool Selection in LLM Agents18 Jun
- 2026Evaluating Privilege Usage of Agents with Real-World Tools30 Mar
- 2026AC4A: Access Control for Agents21 Mar
- 2026Extending the Formalism and Theoretical Foundations of Cryptography to AI3 Mar
- 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control16 Apr
- 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
- 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents11 Oct
- 2024ST-WebAgentBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Safety and Trustworthiness in Web Agents9 Oct
- 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents3 Oct
- 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar
- 2024R-Judge: Benchmarking Safety Risk Awareness for LLM Agents18 Jan
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep
Other references · 20
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
- 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 2,006
- 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIscited by 1,947
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,642
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402
- 2023Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIscited by 1,332
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,267
- 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,128
- 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 832
- 2024The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructionscited by 493
- 2024StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queriescited by 375
8 more
- 2023Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defensescited by 364
- 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlightingcited by 267
- 2018The Art, Science, and Engineering of Fuzzing: A Surveycited by 62
- 2018Penalizing side effects using stepwise relative reachabilitycited by 38
- 2024SPML: A DSL for Defending Language Models Against Prompt Attackscited by 34
- 2025Towards Automating Data Access Permissions in AI Agentscited by 21
- 2026FORTIS: Benchmarking Over-Privilege in Agent Skillscited by 13
- 2014Mining Attribute-Based Access Control Policies from Logscited by 10
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Security Engineering of OpenClaw: Analyzing Attack Surface Expansion and Trust-Boundary Violations
- 2026CWE-bench: Refocusing Agentic Security from Exploitation to Defense
- 2026Agent Privilege Separation in OpenClaw: A Structural Defense Against Prompt Injection
- 2026AgentVisor: Defending LLM Agents Against Prompt Injection via Semantic Virtualization
- 2026ARGUS: Defending LLM Agents Against Context-Aware Prompt Injection
- 2025AgentSentinel: An End-to-End and Real-Time Security Defense Framework for Computer-Use Agents
- 2026Silent Failures in Agentic Security Evaluation: A Validated Harness for Tool-Call Mediation Under Indirect Prompt Injection
- 2026Beyond Attack-Success Rate: Action-Graded Severity Scale for Tool-Using AI Agents