Abstract:Agentic AI introduces security vulnerabilities that traditional LLM safeguards fail to address. Although recent work by Unit 42 at Palo Alto Networks demonstrated that ChatGPT-4o successfully executes attacks as an agent that it refuses in chat mode, there is no comparative analysis in multiple models and frameworks. We conducted the first systematic penetration testing and comparative evaluation of agentic AI systems, testing five prominent models (Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-4o, Grok 2, and Nova Pro) across two agentic AI frameworks (AutoGen and CrewAI) using a seven-agent architecture that mimics the functionality of a university information manageme…
Abstract:Agentic AI introduces security vulnerabilities that traditional LLM safeguards fail to address. Although recent work by Unit 42 at Palo Alto Networks demonstrated that ChatGPT-4o successfully executes attacks as an agent that it refuses in chat mode, there is no comparative analysis in multiple models and frameworks. We conducted the first systematic penetration testing and comparative evaluation of agentic AI systems, testing five prominent models (Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-4o, Grok 2, and Nova Pro) across two agentic AI frameworks (AutoGen and CrewAI) using a seven-agent architecture that mimics the functionality of a university information management system and 13 distinct attack scenarios that span prompt injection, Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF), SQL injection, and tool misuse. Our 130 total test cases reveal significant security disparities: AutoGen demonstrates a 52.3% refusal rate versus CrewAI’s 30.8%, while model performance ranges from Nova Pro’s 46.2% to Claude and Grok 2’s 38.5%. Most critically, Grok 2 on CrewAI rejected only 2 of 13 attacks (15.4% refusal rate), and the overall refusal rate of 41.5% across all configurations indicates that more than half of malicious prompts succeeded despite enterprise-grade safety mechanisms. We identify six distinct defensive behavior patterns including a novel "hallucinated compliance" strategy where models fabricate outputs rather than executing or refusing attacks, and provide actionable recommendations for secure agent deployment. Complete attack prompts are also included in the Appendix to enable reproducibility.
| Subjects: | Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2512.14860 [cs.CR] |
| (or arXiv:2512.14860v1 [cs.CR] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.14860 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite |
Submission history
From: Mohammad I. Husain [view email] [v1] Tue, 16 Dec 2025 19:22:50 UTC (415 KB)