AgentRFC: Security Design Principles and Conformance Testing for Agent Protocols
arXiv SecurityArchived 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?)