The practice of fine-tuning AI agents on data from their own interactions--such as web browsing or tool use--, while being a strong general recipe for improving agentic capabilities, also introduces a critical security vulnerability within the AI supply chain. In this work, we show that adversaries can easily poison the data collection pipeline to embed hard-to-detect backdoors that are triggerred by specific target phrases, such that when the agent encounters these triggers, it performs an unsafe or malicious action. We formalize and validate three realistic threat models targeting different layers of the supply chain: 1) direct poisoning of fine-tuning data, where an attacker controls a fraction of the training traces; 2) environmental poisoning, where malicious instructions are injected into webpages scraped or tools called while creating training data; and 3) supply chain poisoning, where a pre-backdoored base model is fine-tuned on clean data to improve its agentic capabilities. Our results are stark: by poisoning as few as 2% of the collected traces, an attacker can embed a backdoor causing an agent to leak confidential user information with over 80% success when a specific trigger is present. This vulnerability holds across all three threat models. Furthermore, we demonstrate that prominent safeguards, including two guardrail models and one weight-based defense, fail to detect or prevent the malicious behavior. These findings highlight an urgent threat to agentic AI development and underscore the critical need for rigorous security vetting of data collection processes and end-to-end model supply chains.

Fine-tuning pretrained models is a standard and effective workflow in modern machine learning. However, robust fine-tuning (RFT), which aims to simultaneously achieve adaptation to a downstream task and robustness to adversarial examples, remains challenging. Despite the abundance of non-robust pretrained models in open-source repositories, their potential for RFT is less understood. We address this knowledge gap by systematically examining RFT from such non-robust models. Our experiments reveal that fine-tuning non-robust models with a robust objective, even under small perturbations, can lead to poor performance, a phenomenon that we dub \emph{suboptimal transfer}. In challenging scenarios (eg, difficult tasks, high perturbation), the resulting performance can be so low that it may be considered a transfer failure. We find that fine-tuning using a robust objective impedes task adaptation at the beginning of training and eventually prevents optimal transfer. However, we propose a novel heuristic, \emph{Epsilon-Scheduling}, a schedule over perturbation strength used during training that promotes optimal transfer. Additionally, we introduce \emph{expected robustness}, a metric that captures performance across a range of perturbations, providing a more comprehensive evaluation of the accuracy-robustness trade-off for diverse models at test time. Extensive experiments on a wide range of configurations (six pretrained models and five datasets) show that \emph{Epsilon-Scheduling} successfully prevents \emph{suboptimal transfer} and consistently improves expected robustness.