CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Mar 26, 2026

AgentRFC: Security Design Principles and Conformance Testing for Agent Protocols

arXiv Security Archived Mar 26, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2603.23801v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agent protocols -- including MCP, A2A, ANP, and ACP -- enable autonomous agents to discover capabilities, delegate tasks, and compose services across trust boundaries. Despite massive deployment (MCP alone has 97M+ monthly SDK downloads), no systematic security framework for these protocols exists. We present three contributions. First, the Agent Protocol Stack, a 6-layer architectural model that defines what a complete agent protocol must speci

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Cryptography and Security [Submitted on 25 Mar 2026] AgentRFC: Security Design Principles and Conformance Testing for Agent Protocols Shenghan Zheng, Qifan Zhang AI agent protocols -- including MCP, A2A, ANP, and ACP -- enable autonomous agents to discover capabilities, delegate tasks, and compose services across trust boundaries. Despite massive deployment (MCP alone has 97M+ monthly SDK downloads), no systematic security framework for these protocols exists. We present three contributions. First, the Agent Protocol Stack, a 6-layer architectural model that defines what a complete agent protocol must specify at each layer -- analogous to ITU-T X.800 for the OSI stack. Second, the Agent-Agnostic Security Model, 11 security principles formalized as TLA+ invariants, each tagged with a property taxonomy (spec-mandated, spec-recommended, aasm-hardening, aps-completeness) that distinguishes protocol non-conformance from framework-imposed security requirements. Third, AgentConform, a two-phase conformance checker that (i)extracts normative clauses from protocol specifications into a typed Protocol~IR with explicit Protocol/Environment/Adversary action separation, (ii)compiles the IR into TLA+ models and model-checks them against AASM invariants, then (iii)replays counterexample traces against live SDK implementations to confirm findings. We introduce the Composition Safety (CS) principle: security properties that hold for individual protocols can break when protocols are composed through shared infrastructure. We demonstrate this with formal models of five protocol composition patterns, revealing cross-protocol design gaps that individual protocol analysis cannot detect. Preliminary application to representative agent protocols reveals recurrent gaps in credential lifecycle, consent enforcement, audit completeness, and composition safety. Some findings are under coordinated disclosure; full evaluation details will be released in the complete version. Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR) Cite as: arXiv:2603.23801 [cs.CR]   (or arXiv:2603.23801v1 [cs.CR] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.23801 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Shenghan Zheng [view email] [v1] Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:25:02 UTC (21 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.CR < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-03 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
    Mar 26, 2026
    Archived
    Mar 26, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗