Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

A Systematization of Security Vulnerabilities in Computer Use Agents

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2507.05445 v1 pith:AJN4JMUH submitted 2025-07-07 cs.CR

A Systematization of Security Vulnerabilities in Computer Use Agents

classification cs.CR
keywords agentscuassecurityadversarialboundariescomputerreasoningthreat
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Computer Use Agents (CUAs), autonomous systems that interact with software interfaces via browsers or virtual machines, are rapidly being deployed in consumer and enterprise environments. These agents introduce novel attack surfaces and trust boundaries that are not captured by traditional threat models. Despite their growing capabilities, the security boundaries of CUAs remain poorly understood. In this paper, we conduct a systematic threat analysis and testing of real-world CUAs under adversarial conditions. We identify seven classes of risks unique to the CUA paradigm, and analyze three concrete exploit scenarios in depth: (1) clickjacking via visual overlays that mislead interface-level reasoning, (2) indirect prompt injection that enables Remote Code Execution (RCE) through chained tool use, and (3) CoT exposure attacks that manipulate implicit interface framing to hijack multi-step reasoning. These case studies reveal deeper architectural flaws across current CUA implementations. Namely, a lack of input provenance tracking, weak interface-action binding, and insufficient control over agent memory and delegation. We conclude by proposing a CUA-specific security evaluation framework and design principles for safe deployment in adversarial and high-stakes settings.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Domain-Conditioned Safety in Frontier Computer-Using Agents: A 793-Episode Browser Benchmark, a Coding-Domain Cross-Reference, and a Reproducibility Audit of Recent Red-Teaming

    cs.CR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Frontier browser agents show strong resistance to hand-crafted multi-step prompt injections (0/140 success), unlike coding agents (up to 100%), indicating domain-conditioned safety and that prior high ASR reports may ...

  2. Mind the Gap: Action Rebinding Attacks against Android GUI Agents

    cs.CR 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    A zero-permission Android app can redirect a GUI agent's planned tap to a different app by switching the foreground during the agent's reasoning delay.

  3. Securing Computer-Use Agents: A Unified Architecture-Lifecycle Framework for Deployment-Grounded Reliability

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The paper develops a unified framework that organizes computer-use agent reliability around perception-decision-execution layers and creation-deployment-operation-maintenance stages to map security and alignment inter...

  4. Toward Secure LLM Agents: Threat Surfaces, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluation

    cs.CR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    A synthesis of 247 papers on LLM agent security identifies prompt injection and tool hijacking as dominant threats, notes weakly compositional defenses, and argues for trust boundaries and realistic evaluations.