ZeroHour
arXiv cs.CRpublished ()ingested Hasnain Irshad

The Verifiable Action Card: Trustworthy Human-in-the-Loop Control for Secure Autonomous Agents

infoAI safety & securityimportance 55
AI summary · glm-5.3-flash

Verifiable Action Card architecture blocks indirect prompt injection in agentic browsers, cutting attack success from 68-100% to 0%.

Researchers propose VAC, a browser-architecture defense that reconstructs approval prompts from the ground-truth pending action and trusted intent provenance, rendering them out-of-band in trusted browser chrome. On a 24-scenario benchmark covering confused-deputy attacks, dialog forging, and indirect prompt injection, attack success fell from 68-100% to 0% across evaluated LLMs, with 78% legitimate-task completion and a 0% false-block rate. Approval is bound to the exact action re-verified at dispatch.

  • Approvals bound to the exact action re-verified at dispatch
  • Combines provenance fencing, default-deny confirmation, risk gating
  • Benchmark covers prompt injection and Lies-in-the-Loop dialog forging
  • 0% attack success with 78% legitimate task completion
Full article197 words · extracted from arxiv.org · click to collapse

Agentic browsers can execute security-sensitive actions under a user's authenticated session, making indirect prompt injection and deceptive confirmation interfaces a direct threat to action integrity. Existing human-in-the-loop (HITL) safeguards are insufficient when the approval prompt itself can be influenced by untrusted page content or model-generated text. We present the \emph{Verifiable Action Card} (VAC), an architectural defence that reconstructs approval information from the ground-truth pending browser action and trusted intent provenance, renders it out-of-band in the trusted browser chrome, and binds approval to the exact action re-verified at dispatch. VAC combines provenance fencing, a ground-truth action descriptor, default-deny confirmation, provenance-aware risk gating, and execution binding. We implement VAC in a complete agentic browser and evaluate it on a 24-scenario benchmark covering confused-deputy attacks, Lies-in-the-Loop dialog forging, indirect prompt injection, adaptive action substitution, provenance evasion, and legitimate tasks. Across the evaluated LLMs, attack success without VAC ranges from $68\%$ to $100\%$, whereas VAC reduces attack success to $0\%$ on every model, with $78\%$ legitimate-task completion and a $0\%$ false-block rate. These results show that grounding approval in the action that will actually execute provides architectural protection against security failures that prompt-level defences and conventional HITL confirmation cannot reliably prevent.

Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.18411