arXiv:2605.22321cs.CRcs.AI2026-05

自动测试智能体安全漏洞,发现传统方法忽略的多轮风险

ASEval: Automated Trajectory-Level Security Testing for Autonomous Agents

论文配图:ASEval: Automated Trajectory-Level Security Testing for Autonomous Agents
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 用对话扰动生成攻击用例,基于动作判断完整执行轨迹
  • 使安全漏洞触发率从22.9%提升至47.4%,人工标注准确率达93.2%
  • 适合研究智能体安全、自动化测试及大模型应用落地的开发者

随着自主智能体(如OpenClaw)在系统级权限下执行复杂任务,其带来的安全风险日益严峻。现有大模型安全测试多聚焦于提示词与响应层面,而近期智能体评测在自动化、轨迹覆盖和动作感知判断方面仍显不足。本文提出ASEval,一种面向自主智能体的自动化安全测试框架。该框架生成真实多轮良性对话,通过精心设计的扰动算子转化为风险测试用例,在目标智能体上执行并采用动作感知评估器判断完整行为轨迹。我们基于ASEval构建了包含2,254个可执行多轮测试用例的A3S-Bench,覆盖多样化使用场景、交付模式和智能体级安全风险。对11个基于LLM的OpenClaw智能体的评估表明,ASEval能有效暴露普遍存在的安全缺陷。特别地,所提扰动算子使平均风险触发率由原有注入技术的22.9%提升至47.4%,动作感知评估器与人工标注在二分类F1上达到93.2%一致。进一步分析与案例研究揭示,这些缺陷源于多轮传递、持续状态及工具驱动行为,而响应层面评估难以捕捉。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

As autonomous agents (e.g., OpenClaw) increasingly operate with deep system-level privileges to execute complex tasks, they introduce severe, unmitigated security risks. Existing LLM safety testing methods are largely built around prompt-level inputs and response-level judgments, while recent agent benchmarks remain limited in automation, trajectory coverage, and action-grounded judgment. In this work, we present ASEval, a novel automated security testing framework for autonomous agents. ASEval generates realistic benign multi-turn conversations, perturbs them into risk test cases through carefully designed perturbation operators, executes each case against the target agent, and applies an action-grounded oracle to judge the complete trace. We instantiate ASEval to construct A3S-Bench, a test suite of 2,254 executable multi-turn test cases spanning diverse usage scenarios, delivery patterns, and agent-level security risks. Extensive evaluation on 11 LLM-backed OpenClaw agents confirms that ASEval effectively exposes pervasive security failures. In particular, our proposed perturbation operators raise the average risk-trigger rate from 22.9% under existing injection techniques to 47.4%, as judged by an action-grounded oracle that matches human annotation at 93.2% binary F1. Our further analysis and case studies illustrate that such failures emerge from multi-turn delivery, persistent state, and tool-mediated actions that response-level evaluation overlooks.

智能体安全自动化测试大模型评测风险检测

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。