mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Securing Computer-Use Agents Against Branch Steering Attacks

arXiv 2610.03089 ↗First posted 2 Oct 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

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

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Modern Computer Use Agents (CUAs) directly interact with graphical user interfaces and execute third-party web tools, exposing them to indirect prompt injection across every rendered page and tool response. While the Dual-LLM pattern is the primary system-level architecture offering formal security guarantees - using an isolated Planner LLM (P-LLM) to fix execution paths before processing untrusted inputs via a Quarantined LLM (Q-LLM) - these guarantees break down in graphical environments. Because CUA interaction is inherently dynamic, plans cannot remain data-independent; they must branch based on anticipated runtime web content - covering all possible cases the agent may encounter. This exposes agents to branch steering attacks, where an adversary crafts untrusted data to coerce a CUA down a hazardous, pre-approved branch without injecting explicit instructions. We systematically study branch steering attacks and introduce STEER-Bench (101 tasks across 9 domains), showing high attack success against both standard (94.4%) and vanilla Dual-LLM (89.5%) CUAs. We then propose COBRA, an architecture that pairs trusted branching plans with ahead-of-time capability constraints, strictly bounding the parameters and destinations each branch may execute. On STEER-Bench, COBRA reduces attack success to 0% while retaining 97% benign utility.

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 22 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2026.

Builds on

22 of 26 references.

Closest ancestors · 18

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026CaMeLs Can Use Computers Too: System-level Security for Computer Use Agents14 Jan
  2. 2025MCP-SafetyBench: A Benchmark for Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models with Real-World MCP Servers17 Dec
  3. 2025AgentSentinel: An End-to-End and Real-Time Security Defense Framework for Computer-Use Agents9 Sep
  4. 2025MCPSecBench: A Systematic Security Benchmark and Playground for Testing Model Context Protocols17 Aug
  5. 2025OS-Harm: A Benchmark for Measuring Safety of Computer Use Agents17 Jun
  6. 2025WASP: Benchmarking Web Agent Security Against Prompt Injection Attacks22 Apr
  7. 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control16 Apr
  8. 2025The Obvious Invisible Threat: LLM-Powered GUI Agents' Vulnerability to Fine-Print Injections15 Apr
  9. 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
  10. 2025MIP against Agent: Malicious Image Patches Hijacking Multimodal OS Agents13 Mar
  11. 2025In-Context Defense in Computer Agents: An Empirical Study12 Mar
  12. 2025RTBAS: Defending LLM Agents Against Prompt Injection and Privacy Leakage13 Feb
6 more
  1. 2025MELON: Provable Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks in AI Agents7 Feb
  2. 2025Firewalls to Secure Dynamic LLM Agentic Networks3 Feb
  3. 2024Attacking Vision-Language Computer Agents via Pop-ups4 Nov
  4. 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents3 Oct
  5. 2024IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems8 Mar
  6. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar

Other references · 4

  1. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
  2. 2025Securing AI Agents with Information-Flow Controlcited by 121
  3. 2025OSWorld-MCP: Benchmarking MCP Tool Invocation In Computer-Use Agentscited by 29
  4. 2025ETDI: Mitigating Tool Squatting and Rug Pull Attacks in Model Context Protocol (MCP) by using OAuth-Enhanced Tool Definitions and Policy-Based Access Controlcited by 20

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Secure-CUA: Controlling Untrusted Influence in Computer-Use Agents
  2. 2025A Systematization of Security Vulnerabilities in Computer Use Agents
  3. 2026Towards Safe Autonomy for Computer Use
  4. 2026Domain-Conditioned Safety in Frontier Computer-Using Agents: A 793-Episode Browser Benchmark, a Coding-Domain Cross-Reference, and a Reproducibility Audit of Recent Red-Teaming
  5. 2026SIR: Self-improving Red-teaming for Compute Use Agents
  6. 2025A Survey on the Safety and Security Threats of Computer-Using Agents: JARVIS or Ultron?
  7. 2026ToolFence: Fine-Grained Authorization for Secure Tool-Using LLM Agents
  8. 2026ROPE: Routed Origin Policy Enforcement against Indirect Prompt Injection