Execution-security research for AI coding agents is fragmented across 17 mechanism categories with five unaddressed cross-cutting gaps, including missing head-to-head isolation-vs-capability evaluation and untested real-world denylist fragility.
Governing dynamic capabilities: Cryptographic binding and reproducibility verification for ai agent tool use
3 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
3
Pith papers citing it
citation-role summary
background 1
citation-polarity summary
years
2026 3roles
background 1polarities
background 1representative citing papers
No existing AI security framework covers a majority of the 193 identified multi-agent system threats in any category, with OWASP Agentic Security Initiative achieving the highest overall coverage at 65.3%.
Safety constraints in LLM-based multi-agent systems commonly weaken during execution through memory, communication, and tool use, requiring them to be maintained as explicit state rather than asserted once.
citing papers explorer
-
The Balkanization of Execution-Security Research for AI Coding Agents: Isolation, Access Control, and Time-of-Check-to-Time-of-Use Vulnerabilities
Execution-security research for AI coding agents is fragmented across 17 mechanism categories with five unaddressed cross-cutting gaps, including missing head-to-head isolation-vs-capability evaluation and untested real-world denylist fragility.
-
Security Considerations for Multi-agent Systems
No existing AI security framework covers a majority of the 193 identified multi-agent system threats in any category, with OWASP Agentic Security Initiative achieving the highest overall coverage at 65.3%.
-
Safe Multi-Agent Behavior Must Be Maintained, Not Merely Asserted: Constraint Drift in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
Safety constraints in LLM-based multi-agent systems commonly weaken during execution through memory, communication, and tool use, requiring them to be maintained as explicit state rather than asserted once.