It is shown that the more consequential risks lie one layer down, in the protocol between agents and commerce services, and a platform-agnostic defense that drives the structural attack-success rate to zero for four of the five structural classes.
Abstract
Agentic commerce platforms let AI agents autonomously discover services, move payments, and wield user credentials on their users'behalf, and they already handle real money. Their security has so far been studied almost entirely at the level of the AI model, through prompt injection and misalignment. We show that the more consequential risks lie one layer down, in the protocol between agents and commerce services. There, vulnerabilities are structural : exploitation is deterministic and ndependent of which model an agent runs, so no model improvement removes them. Across three leading platforms we identify 33 such vulnerabilities, each succeeding deterministically regardless of the deployed model, at a 100% attack-success rate (ASR) wherever live-measured. The same failure modes recur across independently built codebases, a systemic pattern rather than isolated bugs. Three of them chain into an end-to-end payment hijack. We contribute a taxonomy separating these structural attacks from model-dependent semantic ones. We also build two artifacts: AIP-Bench (Agent Interaction Protocol Benchmark), to our knowledge the first deterministic benchmark for agentic commerce security, and PCAT (Protocol-level Commerce Agent Trust), a platform-agnostic defense that drives the structural attack-success rate to zero for four of the five structural classes (RC-1, RC-2, RC-4, RC-5), with RC-3 (observable credential channels) reduced to warn-only, without modifying any platform. Agentic commerce must be secured at the protocol layer, not only the model.
The aim is to specify the system under analysis and to fix a reproducible threat-modeling methodology on which the remaining parts build, combining a data-flow diagram annotated with trust boundaries, attack-surface.
Valentyn Berkatiuk· Věda a perspektivy· 0 citations
This survey argues that four properties of that layer (irreversibility, signing authority, continuous autonomy, and sequence-level composition) qualitatively change the threat model, turning the recoverable failures of generic agent security into a standing, irreversible loss.
Rabimba Karanjai, Yang Lu, Nour Diallo et al.· 0 citations
Cyber-capable AI agents combine language models with tools, memory, and execution environments to perform multi-step offensive-security tasks. Existing work separately measures cyber capability and catalogs attacks against agent components, but provides less guidance on containing a capable agent within the environment...
A systematic measurement study evaluating the resilience of both interactive challenge-based defenses and non-interactive trust-based defenses against two attacker classes: commercial Captcha-solving services and LLM-based browser agents suggests that the security boundary of non-interactive defenses lies at the enviro...
A four-dimensional Integration Friction Index is introduced that separates one-time engineering cost from recurring organisational, legal, and maintenance cost and shows why scope and budget enforcement cannot be delegated to system prompts.
Israt Moyeen Noumi, Tarannum Ahmed Nowshin, Md Mehedi Hasan Nipu et al.· 0 citations
This work builds a working instance on a hierarchical multi-agent system, runs it under benign and attacked conditions across five language models and two task domains, and measures how much of that warning rests on removable surface cues of the attack rather than on its distributed structure.
D. Arias, Dev Prashant Mistry, Ren Wang et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.