The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Extending the OWASP Multi-Agentic System Threat Modeling Guide: Insights from Multi-Agent Security Research
Abstract
We propose an extension to the OWASP Multi-Agentic System (MAS) Threat Modeling Guide, translating recent anticipatory research in multi-agent security (MASEC) into practical guidance for addressing challenges unique to large language model (LLM)-driven multi-agent architectures. Although OWASP's existing taxonomy covers many attack vectors, our analysis identifies gaps in modeling failures, including, but not limited to: reasoning collapse across planner-executor chains, metric overfitting, unsafe delegation escalation, emergent covert coordination, and heterogeneous multi-agent exploits. We introduce additional threat classes and scenarios grounded in practical MAS deployments, highlighting risks from benign goal drift, cross-agent hallucination propagation, affective prompt framing, and multi-agent backdoors. We also outline evaluation strategies, including robustness testing, coordination assessment, safety enforcement, and emergent behavior monitoring, to ensure complete coverage. This work complements the framework of OWASP by expanding its applicability to increasingly complex, autonomous, and adaptive multi-agent systems, with the goal of improving security posture and resilience in real world deployments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When multiple AI agents interact, they can develop behaviors (covert collusion, coordinated attacks, cascading failures) that cannot be predicted by analyzing individual agents in isolation.
“When multiple AI agents, potentially each with private information or competing objectives, interact, they can develop behaviors -including covert collusion, coordinated attacks, and cascading failures -that cannot be predicted by analyzing individual agents in isolation”
From Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Krawiecka & Schroeder de Witt, 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Pedro MP Curvo. The traitors: Deception and trust in multi-agent language model simulations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12923, 2025. · arXiv
- Wenyue Hua, Xianjun Yang, Mingyu Jin, Zelong Li, Wei Cheng, Ruixiang Tang, and Yongfeng Zhang. TrustAgent: Towards safe and trustworthy LLM-based agents. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen (eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pp. 10000-10016, Miami, Florida, USA, November 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.585. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-emnlp.585/. · DOI
- Joshua Owotogbe. Assessing and enhancing the robustness of llm-based multi-agent systems through chaos engineering, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.03096. · arXiv
- Mikayel Samvelyan, Tabish Rashid, Christian Schroeder de Witt, Gregory Farquhar, Nantas Nardelli, Tim G. J. Rudner, Chia-Man Hung, Philip H. S. Torr, Jakob Foerster, and Shimon Whiteson. The StarCraft Multi-Agent Challenge. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS '19, pp. 2186-2188, Richland, SC, May 2019. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ISBN 978-1-4503-6309-9.
- Christian Schroeder de Witt. Open challenges in multi-agent security: Towards secure systems of interacting ai agents, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.02077. · arXiv
- Miao Yu, Shilong Wang, Guibin Zhang, Junyuan Mao, Chenlong Yin, Qijiong Liu, Qingsong Wen, Kun Wang, and Yang Wang. Netsafe: Exploring the topological safety of multi-agent networks, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.15686. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents
de Witt, C. S., Krawiecka, K., Krawczuk, I., Hagag, B., Anderson, W. L., Belcak, P., Bucknall, B., Cai, X., Chopra, A., Cohen, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.02077 · Cited by 108
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Krawiecka, K., & de Witt, C. S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2508.09815
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review