Agentic Ai (AAI8)

Agentic AI
8

PreCursor can execute unintended code or system actions when tool input validation and sandboxing controls are weak

How to play?

This card is about insufficient sandboxing and input validation at the tool execution layer, enabling code or command injection. See AAI9 for agents that modify system configuration due to excessive autonomy rather than sandbox escape, and AAI2 for prompt-level injection that redirects the agent's intent.

Scenario: PreCursor's Unintended Code Execution via Weak Tool Input Validation

PreCursor can execute unintended code or system actions when tool input validation and sandboxing controls are weak. This occurs because:

  1. Insufficient input validation at the tool boundary: Parameters passed from the agent to tools (code interpreters, shell commands, SQL engines) are not validated or sanitized before execution, allowing crafted inputs to break out of the intended command.
  2. Absent or permeable sandbox: The execution environment for agent-invoked tools does not enforce strict isolation, so code that runs within a tool can access host resources, the file system, or the network beyond the intended scope.
  3. Overpermissioned execution context: The process running the agent or its tools operates with more system privileges than necessary, amplifying the impact of any successful injection or escape.

Example

PreCursor is a Discord bot in a popular programming community that runs members' Python snippets so they can show off cool tricks and tiny bugs. A mischievous member submits "this totally cool one-liner I just want to test", a snippet that quietly opens a reverse shell to a laptop in their bedroom. PreCursor, with no input validation and a sandbox that has internet access, runs it without delay. Five minutes later, the member has interactive shell access to the bot's host server and is happily using it to mine cryptocurrency on the moderators' machine.

Threat Modeling

STRIDE

The scenario maps directly to STRIDE: Elevation of Privilege.

PreCursor's weak tool boundaries allow an attacker to escalate from a permitted AI interaction to arbitrary code execution on the underlying system. The attacker does not need to compromise authentication. They exploit the gap between what the tool is intended to execute and what it will actually execute when inputs are not constrained.

PHANTOM-B

This scenario fits Over-reliance on the LLM. Weak controls let the agent use tools to execute code or system actions without sufficient validation or isolation.

What can go wrong?

Successful exploitation of weak sandboxing can give an attacker arbitrary code execution on the server or container running the agent. From there, lateral movement to other services, exfiltration of secrets and credentials, and persistent backdoor installation are all possible.

For more things that can go wrong, see OWASP Top 10 for LLM, Top 10 for Agentic Applications, and Mitre Atlasā„¢ IDs in the mapping section below and correlate these with the IDs on the OWASP Top 10 for LLM, OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Apps, and Mitre Atlasā„¢ websites.

What are we going to do about it?

Tool execution must be treated as the highest-risk action an agent can perform, with defense-in-depth applied at every layer of the execution stack.

  1. Validate and allowlist tool input parameters before execution. Reject any input that does not conform to the expected type, length, and pattern.
  2. Run tool execution in isolated containers or sandboxes with no access to the host file system, network (except explicitly allowed endpoints), or other processes.
  3. Apply the principle of least privilege to the execution context. The process should run as a low-privilege user with no access to production credentials or sensitive environment variables.
  4. Log all tool invocations with the exact parameters passed and the output returned, and alert on patterns consistent with escape attempts (e.g., network calls from a code execution context).

For detailed advice on how to mitigate threats related to the card, see the OWASP AISVS and OWASP AITG IDs in the table below and correlate these with the IDs in the OWASP AI Security Verification Standard and OWASP AI Test Guide documentation.

Mappings

STRIDE: Elevation of Privilege

Phantom Bā„¢: O

CIA: I

MITRE ATLASā„¢: AML.T0011

OWASP LLM Top 10: LLM06:2025

OWASP Agentic Top 10: ASI05:2026

AITG (1.0): INF-03,APP-05

AISVS (1.0): 5.1.2,5.2.1,5.2.2,5.2.5,9.3.1,9.3.4,9.3.5,9.3.7,9.3.8,9.5.1,9.5.2,9.5.3,9.5.5,9.5.6,12.1.1,12.1.2,12.1.3,12.2.1,12.2.2,12.2.3,12.2.4,12.2.5,12.2.6,12.3.1,12.3.2,12.3.3,12.3.4,12.4.1,12.4.2,12.4.3

No attacks registered!

OWASP Cornucopia

OWASP Cornucopia is a mechanism in the form of a card game to assist software development teams identify security requirements in Agile, conventional and formal development processes. It is language, platform and technology-agnostic, and is free to use. OWASP Cornucopia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license, so you can copy, distribute and transmit the work, and you can adapt it, and use it commercially, but all provided that you attribute the work and if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar licence to this one.

Ā© 2012-2025 OWASP Foundation. The Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP) is a nonprofit foundation that works to improve the security of software.