Demystifying and Detecting Agentic Workflow Injection Vulnerabilities in GitHub Actions
arXiv SecurityArchived May 11, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2605.07135v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: GitHub Actions is increasingly used to deploy LLM-based agents for repository-centric tasks such as issue triage, pull-request review, code modification, and release assistance. These agentic workflows extend traditional CI/CD automation with agentic capabilities but also create a new injection surface. In this paper, we introduce Agentic Workflow Injection (AWI), a workflow-level injection flaw where untrusted GitHub event context, such as issue b
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
[Submitted on 8 May 2026]
Demystifying and Detecting Agentic Workflow Injection Vulnerabilities in GitHub Actions
Shenao Wang, Xinyi Hou, Zhao Liu, Yanjie Zhao, Xiao Cheng, Quanchen Zou, Xiangzheng Zhang, Haoyu Wang
GitHub Actions is increasingly used to deploy LLM-based agents for repository-centric tasks such as issue triage, pull-request review, code modification, and release assistance. These agentic workflows extend traditional CI/CD automation with agentic capabilities but also create a new injection surface. In this paper, we introduce Agentic Workflow Injection (AWI), a workflow-level injection flaw where untrusted GitHub event context, such as issue bodies, pull-request descriptions, or comments, is incorporated into agent prompts or agent-consumed inputs and converted into attacker-influenced behavior through agent tools or downstream workflow logic. We identify two core AWI patterns: Prompt-to-Agent (P2A), where untrusted content reaches an agent prompt boundary, and Prompt-to-Script (P2S), where attacker influence propagates through model- or agent-derived outputs into later scripts. We present the first systematic study of AWI in GitHub Actions. We characterize 1,033 real-world AI-assisted actions and extract AWI-specific taint specifications, including prompt boundaries, derived outputs, agentic capabilities, and access-control interfaces. Based on these specifications, we design TaintAWI, a taint-analysis tool that tracks flows from untrusted event context to agent prompt inputs and security-sensitive workflow sinks. Applying TaintAWI to 13,392 real-world agentic workflows from 10,792 repositories, we report 519 potential AWI vulnerabilities, of which 496 are confirmed exploitable under our threat model, yielding a precision of 95.6%. Among them, 343 are previously unknown zero-day vulnerabilities. We prioritized disclosure for 187 zero-day cases, received 26 maintainer responses, and 24 cases have been accepted or fixed at the time of writing.
Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR)
Cite as: arXiv:2605.07135 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2605.07135v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.07135
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Shenao Wang [view email]
[v1] Fri, 8 May 2026 02:13:04 UTC (757 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CR
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-05
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)