PreprintCited by 1Access Control and TrustAdvanced Authentication Protocols SecurityUser Authentication and Security Systems

Agentic JWT: A Secure Delegation Protocol for Autonomous AI Agents

Open access
Goswami, Abhishek·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Autonomous LLM agents can issue thousands of API calls per hour without human oversight. OAuth 2.0 assumes deterministic clients, but in agentic settings stochastic reasoning, prompt injection, or multi-agent orchestration can silently expand privileges. We introduce Agentic JWT (A-JWT), a dual-faceted intent token that binds each agent's action to verifiable user intent and, optionally, to a specific workflow step. A-JWT carries an agent's identity as a one-way checksum hash derived from its prompt, tools and configuration, and a chained delegation assertion to prove which downstream agent may execute a given task, and per-agent proof-of-possession keys to prevent replay and in-process impersonation. We define a new authorization mechanism and add a lightweight client shim library that self-verifies code at run time, mints intent tokens, tracks workflow steps and derives keys, thus enabling secure agent identity and separation even within a single process. We illustrate a comprehensive threat model for agentic applications, implement a Python proof-of-concept and show functional blocking of scope-violating requests, replay, impersonation, and prompt-injection pathways with sub-millisecond overhead on commodity hardware. The design aligns with ongoing OAuth agent discussions and offers a drop-in path toward zero-trust guarantees for agentic applications. A comprehensive performance and security evaluation with experimental results will appear in our forthcoming journal publication

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2509.13597

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Agentic JWT binds agent actions to verifiable user intent via dual-faceted tokens but operates at the authentication layer without semantic intent verification.

    “Agentic JWT [25] binds agent actions to verifiable user intent via dual-faceted tokens but operates at the authentication layer without semantic intent verification.”

Authors
Goswami, A.
Corresponding author
Goswami, Abhishek
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416254418
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Advanced Authentication Protocols Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › User Authentication and Security Systems
Keywords
autonomous AI agents, LLM agents, OAuth 2.0, authorization, agent identity, replay attack prevention, impersonation, prompt injection, multi-agent orchestration, threat model, zero-trust security, API access control

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