A Formal Analysis of Agent Payment Protocols
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The paper presents a systematic security analysis of Google’s Agent Payments Protocol (AP2) version 2.0, focusing on its roles, transaction lifecycle, and deployment architectures. It identifies 48 threats across five attack families, scores them with the AIVSS, and demonstrates eight high‑risk threats with proof‑of‑concept attacks and mitigations. The study also introduces a deployment‑aware scanner to map threats to various checks, showing that signed mandates alone cannot guarantee user intent when pre‑authorization context is manipulated.
arXiv:2607. 21325v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous AI agents increasingly execute actions, invoke tools, and operate on protected resources with limited human oversight.
arXiv:2607. 21325v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Autonomous AI agents increasingly execute actions, invoke tools, and operate on protected resources with limited human oversight.
arXiv:2608. 14074v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents increasingly act on external systems through standardized tool-calling protocols such as the Model Context Protocol (MCP), yet no infrastructure layer constrains their actions to what a principal has verifiably authorized: authorization logic lives in application code, is neither signed nor independently auditable, and the resulting logs lack evidentiary value.
arXiv:2606. 04104v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent systems execute through runtimes with very different control points: local coding tools, framework SDKs, managed agent platforms, API gateways, and observer-only integrations.
arXiv:2606. 03518v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI systems evolve from passive models into autonomous active agents capable of initiating actions, collaborating, and delegating tasks, the traditional boundaries of software systems blur.