Yue Zhang

Code agents powered by large language models can execute shell commands on behalf of users, introducing severe security vulnerabilities. This paper presents a two-phase security analysis of the OpenClaw platform. As an open-source AI agent framework that operates locally, OpenClaw can be integrated with various commercial large language models. Because its native architecture lacks built-in security constraints, it serves as an ideal subject for evaluating baseline agent vulnerabilities. First, we systematically evaluate OpenClaw's native resilience against malicious instructions. By testing 47 adversarial scenarios across six major attack categories derived from the MITRE ATLAS and ATT\&CK frameworks, we have demonstrated that OpenClaw exhibits significant inherent security issues. It primarily relies on the security capabilities of the backend LLM and is highly susceptible to sandbox escape attacks, with an average defense rate of only 17\%. To mitigate these critical security gaps, we propose and implement a novel Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) defense layer. We utilize a dual-mode testing framework to evaluate the system with and without our proposed intervention. Our findings show that the introduced HITL layer significantly hardens the system, successfully intercepting up to 8 severe attacks that completely bypassed OpenClaw's native defenses. By combining native capabilities with our HITL approach, the overall defense rate improves to a range of 19\% to 92\%. Our study not only exposes the intrinsic limitations of current code agents but also demonstrates the effectiveness of human-agent collaborative defense strategies.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is an open and standardized interface that enables large language models (LLMs) to interact with external tools and services, and is increasingly adopted by AI agents. However, the security of MCP-based systems remains largely unexplored.In this work, we conduct a large-scale security analysis of MCP servers integrated within MCP clients. We show that treating MCP servers as trusted entities without authenticating the caller identity is fundamentally insecure. Since MCP servers often cannot distinguish who is invoking a request, a single authorization decision may implicitly grant access to multiple, potentially untrusted callers.Our empirical study reveals that most MCP servers rely on persistent authorization states, allowing tool invocations after an initial authorization without re-authentication, regardless of the caller. In addition, many MCP servers fail to enforce authentication at the per-tool level, enabling unauthorized access to sensitive operations.These findings demonstrate that one-time authorization and server-level trust significantly expand the attack surface of MCP-based systems, highlighting the need for explicit caller authentication and fine-grained authorization mechanisms.