Autonomous agent frameworks built upon large language models (LLMs) are evolving into complex, tool-integrated, and continuously operating systems, introducing security risks beyond traditional prompt-level vulnerabilities. As this paradigm is still at an early stage of development, a timely and systematic understanding of its security implications is increasingly important. Although a growing body of work has examined different attack surfaces and defense problems in agent systems, existing studies remain scattered across individual aspects of agent security, and there is still a lack of a layered review on this topic. To address this gap, this survey presents a layered review of security risks and defense strategies in autonomous agent frameworks, with OpenClaw as a case study. We organize the analysis into four security-relevant layers: the context and instruction layer, the tool and action layer, the state and persistence layer, and the ecosystem and automation layer. For each layer, we summarize its functional role, representative security risks, and corresponding defense strategies. Based on this layered analysis, we further identify that threats in autonomous agent frameworks may propagate across layers, from manipulated inputs to unsafe actions, persistent state contamination, and broader ecosystem-level impact. Finally, we highlight potential key challenges, including research imbalance across layers, the lack of long-horizon evaluation, and weak ecosystem trust models, and outline future directions toward more systematic and integrated defenses.

Large language models (LLMs) for Verilog code generation are increasingly adopted in hardware design, yet remain vulnerable to backdoor attacks where adversaries inject malicious triggers during training to induce vulnerable hardware designs. Unlike patchable software vulnerabilities, hardware trojans become irreversible once fabricated, making remediation extremely costly or impossible. Existing active defenses require access to training data, impractical for third-party LLM users, while passive defenses struggle against semantically stealthy triggers that naturally blend into design specifications. In this paper, we hypothesize that under the requirements of both effectiveness and stealthiness, attackers are strongly biased toward embedding triggers in non-functional requirements (e.g., style modifiers, quality descriptors) rather than functional specifications that determine hardware behavior. Exploiting this insight, we propose Semantic Consensus Decoding (SCD), an inference-time passive defense with two key components: (1) functional requirement extraction that identifies essential requirements from user specifications, and (2) consensus decoding that adaptively fuses output distributions based on full user specifications and extracted functional requirements. When these distributions diverge significantly, SCD automatically suppresses suspicious components. Extensive experiments with three representative backdoor attacks demonstrate that SCD reduces average attack success rate from 89% to under 3% with negligible impact on generation quality.

Federated learning (FL) enables privacy-preserving collaborative model training but remains vulnerable to adversarial behaviors that compromise model utility or fairness across sensitive groups. While extensive studies have examined attacks targeting either objective, strategies that simultaneously degrade both utility and fairness remain largely unexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce the Dual-Facet Attack (DFA), a novel threat model that concurrently undermines predictive accuracy and group fairness. Two variants, Synchronous DFA (S-DFA) and Split DFA (Sp-DFA), are further proposed to capture distinct real-world collusion scenarios. Experimental results show that existing robust FL defenses, including hybrid aggregation schemes, fail to resist DFAs effectively. To counter these threats, we propose GuardFed, a self-adaptive defense framework that maintains a fairness-aware reference model using a small amount of clean server data augmented with synthetic samples. In each training round, GuardFed computes a dual-perspective trust score for every client by jointly evaluating its utility deviation and fairness degradation, thereby enabling selective aggregation of trustworthy updates. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that GuardFed consistently preserves both accuracy and fairness under diverse non-IID and adversarial conditions, achieving state-of-the-art performance compared with existing robust FL methods.