arXiv preprint ·
Approval Laundering: Systematizing Approval--Execution Binding Failures in AI Coding-Agent Harnesses
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Modern AI coding-agent harnesses (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Cursor) rest their security boundary on a largely unexamined assumption: that the action A a human approves is the same action A' the harness executes, where A is fixed by a stated policy for what a scope grant or session-scoped approval authorizes. We show this assumption fails systematically and reproducibly. We introduce Approval Laundering, a taxonomy of six failure modes by which a harness's enforcement mechanism silently substitutes A' for A after approval: Scope, Argument, Temporal, Tool, Delegation, and Semantic laundering. Unlike prior work that evaluates risk classifiers against static corpora or infers implicit authorization boundaries, we study credential-binding integrity: given an already-approved action, does the harness dispatch exactly that action? Instrumenting Claude Code's pre-execution mediation point (PreToolUse), we conduct a controlled, headless, repeated-measures study of all six classes (N=19-20 runs each), reporting a Bound-Gap Rate (BGR) with Wilson confidence intervals and inter-rater agreement (kappa=1.0). We prototype Approval Token, a keyed capability Hk(principal, agent_id, session_id, tool, arguments, scope, expiry) issued by a mediator that never returns the key to the agent, evaluated via paired before/after replay of 118 runs (McNemar's exact test). The token fully eliminates Delegation laundering and, for our seeded session-identity-mismatch construction, Temporal laundering (p<10^-5), but by design leaves Scope laundering unaffected and shows no significant reduction in Argument laundering (p=1): an honest negative result, since these two classes leave every recorded dispatch field unchanged, diverging one process level below what a field-only verifier can observe. We discuss implications for defenses that bind only at the tool-invocation boundary.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Cryptography & Security
Does the Readout Bypass Leak the Input? A Feature-Visibility Audit of Hybrid Quantum-Classical Models
AuraForge: Scaling Security Supervision for Training Coding Agents
Anchor-ECC: Local Integrity Checking for Watermarked LLM Outputs via Error-Correcting Codes
DeBERTa-ConPara: Attack-Aware and Deployment-Realistic Detection of AI-Generated Text
SparLeak: Privacy Leakage from Sparse Attention in LLM Inference on Shared GPUs
Get the few papers worth your time in Cryptography & Security every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.