跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.16122 · v1

Intent-Aware Protection for AI Agents

首次提交 2026-11-12 08:17
版本更新 2026-11-12 08:17
雷达观测 2026-11-13 14:16
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

AI agents increasingly access enterprise data, invoke powerful tools, and act with limited human oversight. Existing security defenses primarily detect prompt injection, harmful outputs, or suspicious behavior, but do not determine whether an agent remains faithful to the purpose for which it was deployed. An action may contain no attack pattern and stay within granted permissions while still violating the agent's role, organizational constraints, or purpose. We introduce Intent- Aware Security, a framework that treats trusted agent intent as a first-class security object. We define Intent Preservation and Intent Drift, and operationalize them through an Intent Profile: an agent-specific representation extracted from organizational, role, and developer intent. We further introduce an Intent-Aware benchmark of 887 validated samples across 35 agents, built by a generation procedure that fixes ground-truth labels before LLM realization, and four Intent Profile-based protections: pre-execution detection, post-execution detection, input alignment, and system-prompt hardening. Across all evaluations, Intent Profile-based protection outperforms all profile-free baselines on the primary metric. On our benchmark, it raises four-class acro-F1 from 45% to 79% (Out-of-Scope F1 from 8% to 76%). On more than 10,000 executed AgentDojo trajectories, where ground truth comes from environment state, profile-based post-execution detection reaches 0.949 AUROC versus AlignmentCheck 0.909, 0.897 with raw agent configuration and 0.843 without context. Profile-based input alignment improves protection success by 7 points over DataFilter with a comparable benign utility. These results suggest that an agent's intended purpose can serve as a useful security reference for detecting and mitigating deviations from its deployed role and operational boundaries.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只收录了一个版本。收录下一版后,可以对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-12 08:17 · 最新观测版本

Intent-Aware Protection for AI Agents

AI agents increasingly access enterprise data, invoke powerful tools, and act with limited human oversight. Existing security defenses primarily detect prompt injection, harmful outputs, or suspicious behavior, but do not determine whether an agent remains faithful to the purpose for which it was deployed. An action may contain no attack pattern and stay within granted permissions while still violating the agent's role, organizational constraints, or purpose. We introduce Intent- Aware Security, a framework that treats trusted agent intent as a first-class security object. We define Intent Preservation and Intent Drift, and operationalize them through an Intent Profile: an agent-specific representation extracted from organizational, role, and developer intent. We further introduce an Intent-Aware benchmark of 887 validated samples across 35 agents, built by a generation procedure that fixes ground-truth labels before LLM realization, and four Intent Profile-based protections: pre-execution detection, post-execution detection, input alignment, and system-prompt hardening. Across all evaluations, Intent Profile-based protection outperforms all profile-free baselines on the primary metric. On our benchmark, it raises four-class acro-F1 from 45% to 79% (Out-of-Scope F1 from 8% to 76%). On more than 10,000 executed AgentDojo trajectories, where ground truth comes from environment state, profile-based post-execution detection reaches 0.949 AUROC versus AlignmentCheck 0.909, 0.897 with raw agent configuration and 0.843 without context. Profile-based input alignment improves protection success by 7 points over DataFilter with a comparable benign utility. These results suggest that an agent's intended purpose can serve as a useful security reference for detecting and mitigating deviations from its deployed role and operational boundaries.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗