# Pincer: Resource Authorization for Agents using a Digital Twin

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02569 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.02569/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 53 of its 74 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 53)

- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08560/) (2023)
- [Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09527/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Very Long-Term Conversational Memory of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17753/) (2024)
- [A Survey on the Memory Mechanism of Large Language Model based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13501/) (2024)
- [InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.02691/) (2024)
- [The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13208/) (2024)
- [AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12784/) (2024)
- [StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06363/) (2024)
- [Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02644/) (2024)
- [Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12815/) (2023)
- [Defeating Prompt Injections by Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18813/) (2025)
- [Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlighting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14720/) (2024)
- [SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05451/) (2024)
- [Memory Injection Attacks on LLM Agents via Query-Only Interaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.03704/) (2025)
- [Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.11703/) (2025)
- [IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04960/) (2024)
- [MemoryArena: Benchmarking Agent Memory in Interdependent Multi-Session Agentic Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16313/) (2026)
- [Design Patterns for Securing LLM Agents against Prompt Injections](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08837/) (2025)
- [MemoryGraft: Persistent Compromise of LLM Agents via Poisoned Experience Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.16962/) (2025)
- [A-MemGuard: A Proactive Defense Framework for LLM-Based Agent Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.02373/) (2025)
- [DRIFT: Dynamic Rule-Based Defense with Injection Isolation for Securing LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.12104/) (2025)
- [Contextual Agent Security: A Policy for Every Purpose](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17070/) (2025)
- [AgentDyn: Are Your Agent Security Defenses Deployable in Real-World Dynamic Environments?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.03117/) (2026)
- [ACE: A Security Architecture for LLM-Integrated App Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.20984/) (2025)
- [AMA-Bench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Memory for Agentic Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.22769/) (2026)
- [Zombie Agents: Persistent Control of Self-Evolving LLM Agents via Self-Reinforcing Injections](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15654/) (2026)
- [Control Illusion: The Failure of Instruction Hierarchies in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15851/) (2025)
- [Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic Coding Assistants: A Systematic Analysis of Vulnerabilities in Skills, Tools, and Protocol Ecosystems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17548/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Coding agents have become increasingly long-horizon, autonomous, reliant on general-purpose shell and maintain their own persistent memory for self-improvement. While these capabilities have made the agents powerful, they have also made them harder to defend against external adversaries. Defenses that restrict this architecture --- typed tools, information-flow control, or policy prediction engines --- give up too much functionality to be adopted. Agents deployed today (e.g. Claude, Codex) rely on a combination of user-mediated and automode sandboxing as their primary defense. In user-mediated sandboxing, user-maintained policies decay over time and repeated permission requests cause user fatigue, while auto mode's tool-call classifiers learn no user-specific policy and are not meant to defend against adversarial setups. Pincer is a new defense that operates at the resource layer and works alongside existing defenses at the tool-call layer like the auto mode. At the core of Pincer lies a digital twin, an isolated-context model that automatically learns and enforces dynamic user-specific least-privilege policies. The digital twin keeps continually learning the user's preferences allowing it to act as the user's proxy for the agent's permission requests. To emulate the learning phase, we propose a new usercentric dataset with examples following a multi-day transcript of user-agent interaction. Our evaluation shows that Pincer performs strongly on both security and utility in comparison to several baselines which includes variants of LLM judges and adaptations of Conseca (HotOS '25). We highlight attack types where Pincer's design leads to a significant security improvement compared to all other baselines, while outperforming the baselines even for other types of attacks.