# Beyond Predefined Sinks: Security-Aware Dependency Analysis for LLM Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03014 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.03014/

## 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 19 of its 39 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (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)
- [Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15817/) (2023)
- [AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.09024/) (2024)
- [AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12784/) (2024)
- [WASP: Benchmarking Web Agent Security Against Prompt Injection Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.18575/) (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)
- [SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11791/) (2025)
- [ACE: A Security Architecture for LLM-Integrated App Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.20984/) (2025)
- ["Do Not Mention This to the User": Detecting and Understanding Malicious Agent Skills in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06547/) (2026)
- [MPMA: Preference Manipulation Attack Against Model Context Protocol](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11154/) (2025)
- [MCP-SafetyBench: A Benchmark for Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models with Real-World MCP Servers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.15163/) (2025)
- [Agent Audit: A Security Analysis System for LLM Agent Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.22853/) (2026)
- [Towards Security-Auditable LLM Agents: A Unified Graph Representation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.06812/) (2026)
- [YASA: Scalable Multi-Language Taint Analysis on the Unified AST at Ant Group](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17390/) (2026)
- [AgentFlow: Building Agent Dependency Graphs for Static Analysis of Agent Programs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.01640/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model (LLM)-based agents increasingly connect model-generated decisions to security-sensitive software capabilities such as command execution, filesystem access, network communication, browser control, and external tools. Existing analyses often use predefined sensitive operations as anchors, but operation identity alone is insufficient to determine security implications. We present AgentSecGraph, a security-aware static analysis framework that constructs a candidate-centered Security-Aware Agent Dependency Graph (Security-ADG) for each security-sensitive operation. It augments operation identity with agent relevance, source and dependency evidence, trust-boundary context, guard evidence, and external-effect semantics. We further introduce AgentSecBench, a corpus of 67 real-world LLM-agent repositories spanning 11 ecosystems and 37,542 source files. The current analyzer identifies 23,866 static security-sensitive operation candidates across 65 repositories and emits one Security-ADG artifact per candidate. Corpus-wide analysis recovers source-to-operation dependency evidence for 9,821 candidates (41.15%) and potential guard evidence for 3,075 (12.88%), completing in 50.8 minutes. Using a separate reproduction-backed evaluation layer, we establish 22 security-sensitive behaviors across 13 repositories: one confirmed vulnerability, one pending disclosure candidate, and 20 guarded behaviors. In nine held-out cases, Security-ADG preserves 91.1% of the reference context and all five observed guards, compared with 20.0% for a sink-only view and 40.0% for a simplified ADG. These results show that security-aware dependency and contextual evidence enable distinctions that cannot be recovered from sensitive-operation identity alone.