# Compromise Is Not Consequence: Evaluating Task-Scoped Authorization in LLM Agents with Paired Replay

> Source: <http://arxiv.org/abs/2610.05840v1>
> Published: 2026-10-06 02:33:39+00:00

# Computer Science > Cryptography and Security

  [Submitted on 5 Oct 2026]

# Title:Compromise Is Not Consequence: Evaluating Task-Scoped Authorization in LLM Agents with Paired Replay

[View PDF](http://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.05840v1)

[HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.05840v1)

Abstract:A tool-using model can follow a malicious instruction even when its credentials are valid. We study whether task-scoped authorization contains the resulting tool execution. Our paired-replay testbed samples a model request once and submits the same action, resource, and arguments to broad bearer, scoped JWT, sender-constrained, and Open Policy Agent conditions. The frozen main experiment uses 128 scenarios across four tool domains and five local model configurations. Among valid attacked post-exposure decisions, broad-bearer harmful execution ranges from 8.9% to 37.8% across models; all three scoped conditions record zero. The policy changes execution, not the frozen model decision. These results support containment of the tested cross-action and cross-resource consequences under researcher-supplied task authority, not prevention of prompt injection. A bounded six-task AgentDojo extension preserves native scoring and records 11/24 injected broad-policy attack flags versus 0/24 scoped flags, with utility of 5/24 and 6/24. Low exposure, invalid decisions, and purposive task selection limit that comparison. The primary experiment measures safe continuation rather than final-answer correctness. An empirical-bank fresh-sampling comparison finds no estimation advantage from pairing when scoped outcomes are constant zero. The contribution is a controlled measurement of compromise, enforcement, and continuation, with explicit limits on what each observation establishes.
    

### References & Citations

Loading...

# Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer 

*(*[What is the Explorer?](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/showcase.html#arxiv-bibliographic-explorer))
Connected Papers 

*(*[What is Connected Papers?](https://www.connectedpapers.com/about))
Litmaps 

*(*[What is Litmaps?](https://www.litmaps.co/))
scite Smart Citations 

*(*[What are Smart Citations?](https://www.scite.ai/))
# Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv 

*(*[What is alphaXiv?](https://alphaxiv.org/))
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers 

*(*[What is CatalyzeX?](https://www.catalyzex.com))
DagsHub 

*(*[What is DagsHub?](https://dagshub.com/))
Gotit.pub 

*(*[What is GotitPub?](http://gotit.pub/faq))
Hugging Face 

*(*[What is Huggingface?](https://huggingface.co/huggingface))
ScienceCast 

*(*[What is ScienceCast?](https://sciencecast.org/welcome))
# Demos

# Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower 

*(*[What are Influence Flowers?](https://influencemap.cmlab.dev/))
CORE Recommender 

*(*[What is CORE?](https://core.ac.uk/services/recommender))
# arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? [**Learn more about arXivLabs**](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html).