CaMeLs Can Use Computers Too: System-level Security for Computer Use Agents
Open accessAbstract
AI agents are vulnerable to prompt injection attacks, where malicious content hijacks agent behavior. Among proposed defenses, architectural isolation provides the strongest guarantees by strictly separating trusted task planning from untrusted environment observations. However, applying this design to Computer Use Agents (CUAs), which automate tasks by viewing screens and executing actions, presents a fundamental challenge. Current agents require continuous observation of UI state to determine each action, which conflicts with the isolation required for security. We resolve this tension by demonstrating that UI workflows, while dynamic, are structurally predictable. Single-shot planning, where a trusted planner emits upfront a complete branching plan covering all anticipated runtime states, provides control flow integrity guarantees against arbitrary instruction injections. We introduce NOVA (Navigating via Observation, Verification, and Action) to make this viable in the combinatorially large UI state space, where the plan can invoke a perception model to resolve runtime values such as UI coordinates. We evaluate our design on OSWorld, and retain up to 57% of the performance of frontier models while improving performance for smaller open-source models by up to 19%, demonstrating that rigorous security and utility can coexist in CUAs. Although upfront planning prevents instruction injections, we show that additional measures are needed to defend against \textbf{Branch Steering} attacks, where adversaries deceive the perception model into routing execution down attacker-preferred branches of the plan, such as redirecting the agent to a malicious website.
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
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?
The CaMeL framework adopts a defense-in-depth strategy inspired by classical software security principles, explicitly separating control flow from data flow and enforcing fine-grained capability-based policies at execution time.
“The CaMeL framework instead adopts a defense-in-depth strategy inspired by classical software security principles, explicitly separating control flow from data flow and enforcing fine-grained capability-based policies at execution time (Debenedetti et al., 2025;Foerster et al., 2026).”
From Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Foerster et al., 2026
Section 2.2 and Appendix A.1 describe CaMeL’s separation of trusted planning from untrusted data processing, with an interpreter enforcing capability-based restrictions on individual data items. The paper does not explicitly attribute this design to classical software security principles. Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 also clarify that the authors’ own computer-use adaptation omits security policies, so the execution-time policy claim applies to the original CaMeL design, not their implementation. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFollow-up work shows that computer use agents can be similarly secured while maintaining non-trivial success rates on OSWorld tasks.
“Follow-up work shows that computer use agents can be similarly secured while maintaining non-trivial success rates on OSWorld tasks (Foerster et al., 2026).”
From Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Foerster et al., 2026
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Ang Li, Yin Zhou, Vethavikashini C. Raghuram, Tom Goldstein, and Micah Goldblum. Commercial LLM Agents Are Already Vulnerable to Simple Yet Dangerous Attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08586, 2025. · arXiv
- Manuel Costa, Boris Köpf, Aashish Kolluri, Andrew Paverd, Mark Russinovich, Ahmed Salem, Shruti Tople, Lukas Wutschitz, and Santiago Zanella-Béguelin. Securing ai agents with information-flow control, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.23643.
- Edoardo Debenedetti, Ilia Shumailov, Tianqi Fan, Jamie Hayes, Nicholas Carlini, Daniel Fabian, Christoph Kern, Chongyang Shi, Andreas Terzis, and Florian Tramèr. Defeating prompt injections by design, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2503.18813.
- Yujia Qin, Yining Ye, Junjie Fang, Haoming Wang, Shihao Liang, Shizuo Tian, Junda Zhang, Jiahao Li, Yunxin Li, Shi- jue Huang, et al. Ui-tars: Pioneering automated gui interaction with native agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12326, 2025. · arXiv
- Xinyuan Wang, Bowen Wang, Dunjie Lu, Junlin Yang, Tianbao Xie, Junli Wang, Jiaqi Deng, Xiaole Guo, Yiheng Xu, Chen Henry Wu, Zhennan Shen, Zhuokai Li, Ryan Li, Xiaochuan Li, Junda Chen, Boyuan Zheng, Peihang Li, Fangyu Lei, Ruisheng Cao, Yeqiao Fu, Dongchan Shin, Martin Shin, Jiarui Hu, Yuyan Wang, Jixuan Chen, Yuxiao Ye, Danyang Zhang, Dikang Du, Hao Hu, Huarong Chen, Zaida Zhou, Haotian Yao, Ziwei Chen, Qizheng Gu, Yipu Wang, Heng Wang, Diyi Yang, Victor Zhong, Flood Sung, Y. Charles, Zhilin Yang, and Tao Yu. Opencua: Open foundations for computer-use agents, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09123. · arXiv
- Tianyu Fu, Anyang Su, Chenxu Zhao, Hanning Wang, Minghui Wu, Zhe Yu, Fei Hu, Mingjia Shi, Wei Dong, Jiayao Wang, et al. Mano technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17336, 2025. · arXiv
- Jiabo Ye, Xi Zhang, Haiyang Xu, Haowei Liu, Junyang Wang, Zhaoqing Zhu, Ziwei Zheng, Feiyu Gao, Junjie Cao, Zhengxi Lu, et al. Mobile-agent-v3: Fundamental agents for gui automation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15144, 2025. · arXiv
- Saaket Agashe, Jiuzhou Han, Shuyu Gan, Jiachen Yang, Ang Li, and Xin Eric Wang. Agent S: An Open Agentic Framework that Uses Computers Like a Human. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08164. · arXiv
- Saaket Agashe, Kyle Wong, Vincent Tu, Jiachen Yang, Ang Li, and Xin Eric Wang. Agent s2: A compositional generalist-specialist framework for computer use agents, 2025b. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00906. · arXiv
- Gonzalo Gonzalez-Pumariega, Vincent Tu, Chih-Lun Lee, Jiachen Yang, Ang Li, and Xin Eric Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of scaling agents for computer use, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02250. · arXiv
- Linxin Song, Yutong Dai, Viraj Prabhu, Jieyu Zhang, Taiwei Shi, Li Li, Junnan Li, Silvio Savarese, Zeyuan Chen, Jieyu Zhao, Ran Xu, and Caiming Xiong. Coact-1: Computer-using agents with coding as actions, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.03923. · arXiv
- Yanzhe Zhang, Tao Yu, and Diyi Yang. Attacking vision-language computer agents via pop-ups. In Wanxiang Che, Joyce Nabende, Ekaterina Shutova, and Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, editors, Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8387-8401, Vienna, Austria, July 2025. Association for Computational Linguistics. ISBN 979-8-89176-251-0. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.411. URL https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.411/. · DOI · Paper page
- Lukas Aichberger, Alasdair Paren, Guohao Li, Philip Torr, Yarin Gal, and Adel Bibi. MIP against agent: Malicious image patches hijacking multimodal OS agents. In The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=ToNRHqX6xq.
- Chaoran Chen, Zhiping Zhang, Bingcan Guo, Shang Ma, Ibrahim Khalilov, Simret A Gebreegziabher, Yanfang Ye, Ziang Xiao, Yaxing Yao, Tianshi Li, et al. The obvious invisible threat: Llm-powered gui agents' vulnerability to fine-print injections. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11281, 2025. · arXiv
- Thomas Kuntz, Agatha Duzan, Hao Zhao, Francesco Croce, J Zico Kolter, Nicolas Flammarion, and Maksym Andriushchenko. OS-harm: A benchmark for measuring safety of computer use agents. In ICML 2025 Workshop on Computer Use Agents, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=kNHA0QCSQa.
- Ivan Evtimov, Arman Zharmagambetov, Aaron Grattafiori, Chuan Guo, and Kamalika Chaudhuri. WASP: Benchmarking web agent security against prompt injection attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18575, 2025. · arXiv
- Pei Yang, Hai Ci, and Mike Zheng Shou. In-context defense in computer agents: An empirical study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09241, 2025. · arXiv
- Haitao Hu, Peng Chen, Yanpeng Zhao, and Yuqi Chen. Agentsentinel: An end-to-end and real-time security defense framework for computer-use agents. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS '25, page 3535-3549, New York, NY, USA, 2025. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400715259. doi:10.1145/3719027.3765064. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3719027. 3765064. · DOI
- Milad Nasr, Nicholas Carlini, Chawin Sitawarin, Sander V. Schulhoff, Jamie Hayes, Michael Ilie, Juliette Pluto, Shuang Song, Harsh Chaudhari, Ilia Shumailov, Abhradeep Thakurta, Kai Yuanqing Xiao, Andreas Terzis, and Florian Tramèr. The attacker moves second: Stronger adaptive attacks bypass defenses against llm jailbreaks and prompt injections, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09023. · arXiv
- Chongyang Shi, Sharon Lin, Shuang Song, Jamie Hayes, Ilia Shumailov, Itay Yona, Juliette Pluto, Aneesh Pappu, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Milad Nasr, Chawin Sitawarin, Gena Gibson, Andreas Terzis, and John "Four" Flynn. Lessons from defending gemini against indirect prompt injections, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2505.14534.
- Rylan Schaeffer, Dan Valentine, Luke Bailey, James Chua, Cristóbal Eyzaguirre, Zane Durante, Joe Benton, Brando Miranda, Henry Sleight, John Hughes, Rajashree Agrawal, Mrinank Sharma, Scott Emmons, Sanmi Koyejo, and Ethan Perez. Failures to find transferable image jailbreaks between vision-language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15211. · arXiv
- Anish Athalye, Logan Engstrom, Andrew Ilyas, and Kevin Kwok. Synthesizing robust adversarial examples. In International conference on machine learning, pages 284-293. PMLR, 2018.
- Tianbao Xie, Danyang Zhang, Jixuan Chen, Xiaochuan Li, Siheng Zhao, Ruisheng Cao, Toh J Hua, Zhoujun Cheng, Dongchan Shin, Fangyu Lei, et al. Osworld: Benchmarking multimodal agents for open-ended tasks in real computer environments. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:52040-52094, 2024.
- Fangzhou Wu, Ethan Cecchetti, and Chaowei Xiao. System-level defense against indirect prompt injection attacks: An information flow control perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19091, 2024. · arXiv
- Yuhao Wu, Franziska Roesner, Tadayoshi Kohno, Ning Zhang, and Umar Iqbal. Isolategpt: An execution iso- lation architecture for llm-based agentic systems. In Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Se- curity (NDSS) Symposium. Internet Society, 2025. URL https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss-paper/ isolategpt-an-execution-isolation-architecture-for-llm-based-agentic-systems/.
- Peter Yong Zhong, Siyuan Chen, Ruiqi Wang, McKenna McCall, Ben L Titzer, Heather Miller, and Phillip B Gibbons. Rtbas: Defending llm agents against prompt injection and privacy leakage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08966, 2025. · arXiv
- Sahar Abdelnabi, Amr Gomaa, Per Ola Kristensson, and Reza Shokri. Firewalls to secure dynamic llm agentic networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01822, 2025. · arXiv
- Sahra Ghalebikesabi, Eugene Bagdasaryan, Ren Yi, Itay Yona, Ilia Shumailov, Aneesh Pappu, Chongyang Shi, Laura Weidinger, Robert Stanforth, Leonard Berrada, Pushmeet Kohli, Po-Sen Huang, and Borja Balle. Operationalizing contextual integrity in privacy-conscious assistants, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02373. · arXiv
- Kuang-Hua Huang and Jacob A. Abraham. Algorithm-based fault tolerance for matrix operations. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-33(6):518-528, 1984. doi:10.1109/TC.1984.1676475. · DOI
- P Banerjee. Concurrent fault diagnosis in multiple processor systems. In Proc. 16th Symp. Fault Tolerant Comput, pages 298-303, 1986.
- Algirdas Avizienis. The n-version approach to fault-tolerant software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 11 (12):1491-1501, 1985.
- Liming Chen and Algirdas Avizienis. N-version programming: A fault-tolerance approach to reliability of software operation. Digest of Papers FTCS-8: Eighth Annual International Conference on Fault Tolerant Computing, 1978.
- Paul E Ammann and John C Knight. Data diversity: An approach to software fault tolerance. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 37(4):418-425, 1988.
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 2 · see citing works
Roesner, F., & Kohno, T. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.17817
- Authors
- Foerster, H., Blanchard, T., Nikolić, K., Shumailov, I., Zhang, C., Mullins, R., Papernot, N., Tramèr, F., & Zhao, Y.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- ETH Zurich (CH)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2601.09923
- OpenAlex
- W7124431959
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
- Keywords
- prompt injection, computer-use agents, AI agent security, control-flow integrity, perception model, nova
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