Security Engineering of OpenClaw: Analyzing Attack Surface Expansion and Trust-Boundary Violations
arXiv SecurityArchived Jun 16, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2606.15008v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic large language model (LLM) systems can now execute actions, not only produce text. When model outputs trigger privileged operations such as shell commands, browser automation, or external tool calls, the security problem shifts from alignment alone to system configuration and structural design. We analyze OpenClaw, a self-hosted multi-agent system in which LLM outputs can execute commands and interact with tools and services. We measure com
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
[Submitted on 12 Jun 2026]
Security Engineering of OpenClaw: Analyzing Attack Surface Expansion and Trust-Boundary Violations
Saeid Jamshidi, Arghavan Moradi Dakhel, Kawser Wazed Nafi, Foutse Khomh
Agentic large language model (LLM) systems can now execute actions, not only produce text. When model outputs trigger privileged operations such as shell commands, browser automation, or external tool calls, the security problem shifts from alignment alone to system configuration and structural design. We analyze OpenClaw, a self-hosted multi-agent system in which LLM outputs can execute commands and interact with tools and services. We measure compromise probability, boundary failures, privilege drift, and how these metrics change as attacker capability increases. With one agent, the compromise probability is 0.24. With seven agents, when the system executes an action, the compromise rises to 0.86 if any single agent proposes it. The models do not change; the increase comes from output aggregation. Prompt injection propagates instability across the system. Attack surface entropy increases from 0.42 to 0.71, indicating a broader distribution of exploit paths. The mean privilege drift increases from 0.03 to 0.21, indicating unintended authority gain. Positive escalation curvature of 0.08 indicates that privilege grows faster as attacker capability increases. Defensive controls, including policy gating and execution filtering, reduce compromise probability by 0.10, boundary failures by 0.10, and privilege drift by 0.02, all statistically significant at p < 0.0001. The system remains sensitive, but the mitigation impact is measurable. Injection mitigation success differs across models: 0.37 for GPT-5.2, 0.35 for Llama-4-Maverick, and 0.31 for DeepSeek-R1. When execution can be triggered by any single agent, the most vulnerable agent determines system exposure. Mitigations slightly reduce task utility from 0.93 to 0.89 and increase median latency from 420 ms to 468 ms.
Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR)
Cite as: arXiv:2606.15008 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2606.15008v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.15008
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Saeid Jamshidi [view email]
[v1] Fri, 12 Jun 2026 23:00:42 UTC (4,348 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CR
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-06
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?)