CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning May 19, 2026

Securing LLM Agents Need Intent-to-Execution Integrity

arXiv Security Archived May 19, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2605.16976v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This position paper argues that securing LLM agents requires first defining an end-to-end correctness property that specifies when an agent's execution faithfully reflects the user's intent. Modern LLM agents operate over an \emph{intent-to-execution pipeline}, where natural-language instructions are translated into concrete system operations such as tool calls, API requests, and code execution. While recent defenses have made progress in constrain

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Cryptography and Security [Submitted on 16 May 2026] Securing LLM Agents Need Intent-to-Execution Integrity Wenjie Qu, Ming Xu, Peiran Wang, Shengfang Zhai, Jiaheng Zhang, Dawn Song This position paper argues that securing LLM agents requires first defining an end-to-end correctness property that specifies when an agent's execution faithfully reflects the user's intent. Modern LLM agents operate over an \emph{intent-to-execution pipeline}, where natural-language instructions are translated into concrete system operations such as tool calls, API requests, and code execution. While recent defenses have made progress in constraining how agents construct tool calls, most existing formulations implicitly assume that tools are trusted. The emergence of systems such as OpenClaw, with open ecosystems of third-party skills and direct access to user environments, breaks this assumption and exposes new failure modes, including malicious or over-privileged components in the execution pipeline. Despite rapid progress in defense mechanisms, there is no adequate correctness property that defines what ``secure'' means for LLM agents, nor a principled way to evaluate the coverage of existing defenses. We observe that LLM agents are structurally analogous to compilers, where security violations correspond to mis-executions that do not preserve user intent. Drawing on this analogy, we identify two fundamental problem sources -- untrusted data ingestion and untrusted tool execution -- and derive four integrity properties that must hold simultaneously: \emph{Tool Integrity}, \emph{Instruction Integrity}, \emph{Judgment Integrity}, and \emph{Data Flow Integrity}. We call their conjunction \emph{intent-to-execution integrity}. Analyzing existing agentic defenses against these properties reveals that current systems provide only partial and non-compositional coverage, leaving fundamental gaps in securing modern LLM agents. Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR) Cite as: arXiv:2605.16976 [cs.CR]   (or arXiv:2605.16976v1 [cs.CR] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.16976 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Wenjie Qu [view email] [v1] Sat, 16 May 2026 12:53:31 UTC (20 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?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv Security
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    May 19, 2026
    Archived
    May 19, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗