Kairos: Transactional Security Enforcement at the System Boundary for LLM Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language model (LLM) agents are becoming an integral part of the software development lifecycle, and the capabilities granted to them allow an agent to act with the user's authority on any resource it can access. The reach that gives an agent its utility is equally available to an attacker who can steer it. Anything an agent ingests can carry an injected instruction, and since the model does not reliably distinguish instructions from data, indirect prompt injection should be mitigated by mediating the effects the agent produces. Such mediation faces a structural difficulty. Legitimate work and the first step of an attack often look alike when an individual action is observed, and what separates them lies later in the trace, so a monitor limited to allow and deny is forced to decide before the evidence accumulates. We present Kairos, a reference monitor at the isolation boundary of an unmodified, opaque agent, where a tool call, a shell command, and a script the agent writes all cross the boundary as the same file and network operations, so that confinement holds regardless of the agent's behavior. A declarative policy that states which sources are trusted decides most effects deterministically and defers the rest, which are held while the agent continues speculatively. A decision oracle with bounded authority, such as a language model or a human, releases or refuses each deferred effect on the trace. Across three benchmarks and three agent models, Kairos outperforms existing defenses in the trade-off between attack success and utility. In particular, on AgentDojo, it reduces attack success from 47.0% to 2.7% while its benign utility stays at the level of the undefended agent.
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 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2026.
Builds on
32 of 75 references.
Closest ancestors · 14
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Cordon: Semantic Transactions for Tool-Using LLM Agents16 Jun
- 2026AttriGuard: Defeating Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents via Causal Attribution of Tool Invocations11 Mar
- 2026The 2025 AI Agent Index: Documenting Technical and Safety Features of Deployed Agentic AI Systems19 Feb
- 2025Fault-Tolerant Sandboxing for AI Coding Agents: A Transactional Approach to Safe Autonomous Execution14 Dec
- 2025Preventing Prompt Injection with Type-Directed Privilege Separation30 Sep
- 2025AgentSentinel: An End-to-End and Real-Time Security Defense Framework for Computer-Use Agents9 Sep
- 2025AgentSight: System-Level Observability for AI Agents Using eBPF2 Aug
- 2025AgentArmor: Enforcing Program Analysis on Agent Runtime Trace to Defend Against Prompt Injection2 Aug
- 2025SAFEFLOW: A Principled Protocol for Trustworthy and Transactional Autonomous Agent Systems9 Jun
- 2025LlamaFirewall: An open source guardrail system for building secure AI agents6 May
- 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control16 Apr
- 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
2 more
Other references · 18
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
- 2024The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructionscited by 493
- 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 365
- 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlightingcited by 267
- 2025The Attacker Moves Second: Stronger Adaptive Attacks Bypass Defenses Against Llm Jailbreaks and Prompt Injectionscited by 129
- 2025Securing AI Agents with Information-Flow Controlcited by 121
- 2024Can LLMs Separate Instructions From Data? And What Do We Even Mean By That?cited by 81
- 2025SagaLLM: Context Management, Validation, and Transaction Guarantees for Multi-Agent LLM Planningcited by 60
- 2026AgentDyn: Are Your Agent Security Defenses Deployable in Real-World Dynamic Environments?cited by 59
- 2026Atomix: Timely, Transactional Tool Use for Reliable Agentic Workflowscited by 30
- 2024GoEX: Perspectives and Designs Towards a Runtime for Autonomous LLM Applicationscited by 23
- 2025LLMail-Inject: A Dataset from a Realistic Adaptive Prompt Injection Challengecited by 21
6 more
- 2025Invitation Is All You Need! Promptware Attacks Against LLM-Powered Assistants in Production Are Practical and Dangerouscited by 12
- 2025AgentGit: A Version Control Framework for Reliable and Scalable LLM-Powered Multi-Agent Systemscited by 12
- 2026Agentic Coding in the Wild: Characterizing GitHub Copilot Traces at Production Scalecited by 11
- 2026The Promptware Kill Chain: How Prompt Injections Gradually Evolved Into a Multistep Malware Delivery Mechanismcited by 9
- 2026Agent Security is a Systems Problemcited by 5
- 2026Efficient and Sound Probabilistic Verification for AI Agentscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026SecureClaw: Clawing Back Control of LLM Agents
- 2026Toward Secure LLM Agents: Threat Surfaces, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluation
- 2026A Framework for Formalizing LLM Agent Security
- 2026Beyond Predefined Sinks: Security-Aware Dependency Analysis for LLM Agents
- 2026TraceGrant: A Contract-Governed Security Framework for the Task-Effect Lifecycle of Networked LLM Agents
- 2025DRIFT: Dynamic Rule-Based Defense with Injection Isolation for Securing LLM Agents
- 2026Securing LLM Agents Need Intent-to-Execution Integrity
- 2026When the Agent Becomes the Kernel: A Systematization of Security on the Path to AI-Native Operating Systems