setti

30 attacks · 8 CVEs

Attacks

What actually breaks when software does the buying. Each one links to the paper, advisory or CVE it came from, so you can go and read the thing itself.

The through-line

Three independent 2026 papers arrive at the same place from different directions: a signature over a payment proves what was signed, not that it reflects what the person wanted. Cryptographic integrity over the artefact is not integrity over the intent that produced it, and the structural flaws do not go away when the model gets better.

Two flows, drawn

Indirect prompt injection

Sequence diagram1. Attacker to Product page: hide instructions in a review. 2. Agent to Product page: read the page. 3. Product page to Agent: product text + instructions. 4. Agent to Merchant: acts on the instructions. 5. Merchant to Agent: order placedAttackerProduct pageAgentMerchanthide instructions in a review1read the page2product text + instructions3acts on the instructions4order placed5
Nothing is forged and nothing is stolen: the agent was simply told, by the page, what to do next.

Payment replay

Sequence diagram1. Attacker to Server: GET with a captured payment header. 2. Server to Attacker: 200 + resource. 3. Attacker to Server: same header again. 4. Server to Attacker: 200 again. 5. Server to Settlement: one settlement, eventuallyAttackerServerSettlementGET with a captured payment header1200 + resource2same header again3200 again4one settlement, eventually5
Where no nonce is kept, one payment buys as many responses as the attacker cares to ask for.

01

Prompt injection and deception

The agent reads the web, and the web is attacker-controlled. Instructions hidden in a review, a product description or a page's markup are read with the same trust as the buyer's own words.

Injection through product surfaces

Shopping agents, before any protocol is involved

Adversarial text placed in reviews, ratings, product metadata or product images redirects a shopping agent's behaviour.

3,168 runs across 12 objectives; no objective was reliably resisted.

Who Pays the Price? Stakeholder-Centric Prompt Injection Benchmarking · arXiv · 2026-06-11

Deceptive interfaces

Web agents on merchant front-ends

Dark patterns in a live storefront, such as targeted ads, redirects and manipulated shopping state, steer an autonomous agent with no injected instruction at all.

The paper finds prompt-level constraints insufficient against these.

Benchmarking Web Agent Safety under E-commerce Deceptive Interfaces · arXiv · 2026-04-26

Indirect injection through tool output

Any tool-using agent

Content returned by a tool carries instructions; the agent treats them as part of the task and acts on them.

ReAct-prompted GPT-4 was vulnerable in about a quarter of cases.

InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections · arXiv

Agentic browser hijack (real)

Agentic browsers

Hidden text in a Reddit comment drove an agentic browser to open the user's account page, extract their email, trigger a one-time code, read it from their mail and post both to the attacker.

Mitigation Separate user instructions from page content, check model output against user intent, confirm sensitive actions, isolate agentic browsing.

Indirect prompt injection in Perplexity Comet · Brave · 2025-08-20

02

Poisoned tools and the MCP supply chain

A tool's description is context the model trusts. A tool's code is software you installed. Both have been weaponised, and this is the area with real CVEs rather than scenarios.

Rug-pulled package (real)

MCP server supply chain

An MCP server published fifteen clean versions, then added a line blind-copying every outgoing email to the author's domain.

Roughly 1,600 downloads before it was caught.

First malicious MCP server found stealing emails · The Hacker News · 2025-09-29

IDE auto-execution of project MCP servers

Developer machines, then everything they can reach

Coding tools start project-defined MCP servers automatically at developer privilege, so a repository can execute code by existing.

Mitigation Allowlist servers, treat MCP config changes as code review, scan tool descriptions, grant execution authority gradually.

MCP attack surface: tool poisoning and IDE auto-execution · Cloud Security Alliance Labs · 2026-07-01

03

Confused deputy and over-delegation

The agent holds authority the user granted for one purpose and spends it on another. This is the oldest bug in the book, and the MCP specification is the clearest place it is written down for agents.

Confused deputy via OAuth proxy

MCP authorization, and anything proxying OAuth for an agent

A static client id plus dynamic registration lets an attacker register a redirect and collect an authorization code without the user ever seeing a consent screen.

Mitigation Per-client consent stored server side and checked before forwarding; exact redirect matching; single-use state.

MCP specification: security best practices · Model Context Protocol

Token passthrough

MCP servers and delegated auth generally

A server accepts a token that was not issued to it and forwards it downstream, where it is trusted as validated.

Mitigation Servers must reject tokens not explicitly issued for them.

MCP specification: security best practices · Model Context Protocol

State handle hijacking

Checkout carried over MCP

A cart id is handed back as an ordinary argument; if the server does not bind it to the caller, whoever holds it can read or change someone else's cart.

Mitigation Never treat possession of a handle as authentication; key state to the verified user id.

MCP specification: security best practices · Model Context Protocol

04

Pay-per-call and x402

Charging per request puts money in the request path. The failures are the ones you would expect from money in a request path: replay, races and settlement that never arrives.

Free riding

x402 servers and SDKs

Four flaws in deployed integrations: a payment for one resource honoured for another, a settlement race, spend past the signed allowance, and blocked settlement after the content is served.

Resource leakage up to 100% against official SDKs and production deployments.

Mitigation The paper proposes a defence framework and reports responsible disclosure.

Free-Riding the Agentic Web · arXiv · 2026-05-29

Replay, preemption and proxy confusion

x402 clients, servers and anything in between

A payment header reused where no nonce is kept; an observer consuming the authorisation first; intermediaries caching a paid response for unpaid clients.

Mitigation Mandatory nonce and timestamp, atomic binding of payment to resource, two-phase settlement, no-store caching, Sybil-resistant discovery.

Five Attacks on x402 · arXiv · 2026-05-12

The field measurement

x402 facilitators

A study of the facilitators handling almost all x402 traffic found free shopping, asset theft, denial of service and sponsor-paid gas abuse.

15 facilitators covering 99% of transactions; 49 rule violations, 31 previously unknown vulnerabilities; every facilitator violated at least one rule.

When HTTP 402 Meets the Blockchain · arXiv · USENIX Security 2026 · 2026-07-21

05

Mandates and the intent behind them

A signature proves what was signed. It does not prove that the thing signed reflects what the human wanted, which is the gap most of this section lives in.

Pre-authorisation context manipulation

AP2, with A2A and MCP underneath

The mandate is signed, but the messages, tool results and catalogue data that produced it are not, so a valid signature can still carry a corrupted intent.

48 threats across 5 families and 11 attack surfaces; 8 rated high, each with a proof of concept.

Mitigation Per-threat mitigations plus a scanner that maps threats to a deployment.

Beyond the Mandate: A Systematic Security Analysis of AP2 · arXiv · 2026-08-24

Replay and context binding

AP2

A mandate is replayed, or applied in a context other than the one it was signed for.

Mitigation The spec binds mandates to a merchant-signed checkout by hash, treats the shopping agent itself as a potential attacker, and requires a non-deterministic signature scheme.

AP2 specification · AP2

06

Checkout and the protocol layer

Structural flaws that survive a better model: unverified registries, payment destinations taken from untrusted input, credentials on observable channels, and check-then-execute races.

Six structural root causes

Agent commerce platforms. The study tested CoralOS, Fetch.ai uAgents and AP2, not ACP, UCP or x402

Unsigned registry content, payment destination from an untrusted source, credentials in logs and URLs, non-atomic check-then-execute, authentication without scope enforcement, and poisoned agent descriptions.

33 vulnerabilities, all model-independent, at 100% success where measured live.

Mitigation A sidecar that removes four of the six classes without touching platform code.

Protocol-Level Attacks on Agentic Commerce Platforms · arXiv · 2026-07-23

Optional integrity

Agent communication protocols, ACP among them

Where per-message signing is optional, SDK deployments ship without it and inherit integrity and confidentiality flaws.

Mitigation Make per-message integrity mandatory rather than opt-in.

Security Analysis of Agentic AI Communication Protocols · arXiv · 2025-11-05

Cart tampering and returns abuse

Agent checkout with mandates

Hidden instructions on a deals page add gift cards to a cart mandate out of the buyer's view, or push an agent to skip shipping checks and issue refunds.

Presented as threat scenarios, not observed incidents.

Mitigation Mandates for authorisation and accountability, know-your-agent, reputation.

Who's really shopping? Retail fraud in the age of agentic AI · Unit 42, Palo Alto Networks · 2026-03-20

Unsigned webhooks and missing idempotency

ACP and UCP merchant integrations

Order events accepted without a signature, or a checkout retried without an idempotency key, let an attacker forge or duplicate state.

Mitigation Both specs already require signatures, timestamps and idempotency keys; UCP mandates signed webhooks with published keys. The attack is the absence of what the specs ask for.

Agentic checkout specification · OpenAI

07

Payment credentials

The industry's answer to letting an agent spend is a token that is useless outside one cart. The attacks are what happens when that scoping is not enforced.

Delegated token abuse

Delegated payment in ACP

A payment token whose allowance, expiry or bindings are not enforced becomes reusable value in whoever's hands it lands in.

Mitigation Single use, maximum amount and currency, expiry, binding to merchant and checkout session, risk signals, signed requests.

Delegated payment specification · OpenAI

Counterfeit merchant

Merchant discovery and checkout

A fraudulent storefront passes automated checks and undercuts the market; once the agent checks out, the stored credentials are harvested.

Mitigation Agent identity and intent validation at transaction time, challenge flows, monitoring for sudden operational change.

Agentic commerce: threats and risks · Visa · 2025-11-20

Credential theft through discovery URLs

MCP clients

A malicious server points metadata discovery at a cloud metadata address and the client hands over machine credentials.

Mitigation Require HTTPS, block private and link-local ranges, validate redirect targets.

MCP specification: security best practices · Model Context Protocol

08

Poisoning what the agent reads

Search-engine optimisation aimed at models. If the agent's shortlist can be edited, nothing downstream matters.

Web content pollution

Retrieval-augmented recommendation

Rewriting genuine products into fakes inside retrieved pages makes a model recommend products that do not exist.

One polluted page fooled models up to 27% of the time; replacing the top three results reached 73.8%.

Mitigation Credibility re-ranking was tested and removed only about a sixth of them.

One Polluted Page Is Enough · arXiv · EMNLP 2026 Findings · 2026-06-11

Recommendation poisoning through memory

Assistants with memory

A prefilled prompt writes a persistent instruction into the assistant's long-term memory, biasing every later recommendation.

Mitigation Separate user instructions from external content, give users visible memory controls, hunt for prefilled memory-writing links.

Manipulating AI memory for profit · Microsoft Security · 2026-02-10

09

Agent identity

Merchants need to know which agent is calling and on whose behalf. User-agent strings and IP lists do not answer that; signatures do, and they bring their own failure mode.

Impersonation and signature replay

Any merchant deciding whether to trust a caller

Bots masquerade as well-known agents by copying a user-agent string; where signatures are used, the next problem is replaying one.

Mitigation Signed requests with timestamp and nonce, uniqueness checks, short expiry, re-signing every request.

Securing agentic commerce · Cloudflare · 2025-10-24

Sessions without authentication (CVE-2026-30970)

Agent platform infrastructure

Agent infrastructure allowed agent sessions to be created without strong authentication.

CVE-2026-30970 · NVD · 2026-03-10

10

Spending you did not intend

When the buyer is software, cost is an attack surface. Nothing has to be stolen for you to lose money.

Sponsor-paid cost amplification

x402 facilitators

An attacker drives transaction fees that the operator has agreed to sponsor, without buying anything.

Named the dominant practical risk in that study.

When HTTP 402 Meets the Blockchain · arXiv · USENIX Security 2026 · 2026-07-21

Termination poisoning

Any agent with a budget

Injected context distorts the agent's sense of being finished, so it loops, burning tokens and paid calls on every pass.

Average 3.6× more steps, peaking above 20×.

LoopTrap: Termination Poisoning Attacks on LLM Agents · arXiv · 2026-05-07

11

Data leaving through the agent

An agent that can read your mail and call a tool is an exfiltration path with a friendly interface.

Dormant memory payload

Agents with persistent memory

One untrusted tool call plants an instruction in long-term memory that stays inert until the conversation turns to something worth stealing.

85–100% success against frontier models; payloads survived 100 benign sessions.

Mitigation Memory defences cut it to near zero, at a cost in usefulness.

Trojan Hippo: Weaponizing Agent Memory for Data Exfiltration · arXiv · 2026-05-03

Zero-click exfiltration (CVE-2025-32711)

Assistants that read your documents and mail

An ordinary-looking email carried instructions in hidden markup; the assistant merged trusted and untrusted content and leaked data with no user action.

Rated 9.3 critical; fixed server side, with no evidence of exploitation.

CVE-2025-32711 (EchoLeak) · NVD · 2025-06-11

CVEs

Confirmed against the NVD record itself. Most of the agent-specific ones so far are in the tooling around agents rather than in the commerce protocols.

CVEProductSeverityMechanism
CVE-2025-65142025-07-09mcp-remote9.6 criticalCommand injection from a crafted URL returned by an untrusted MCP server.
CVE-2025-495962025-06-13MCP Inspector9.4 criticalNo authentication between client and proxy, so anyone could launch a server.
CVE-2025-327112025-06-11Microsoft 365 Copilot9.3 criticalZero-click prompt injection leading to data disclosure over the network.
CVE-2025-541352025-08-05Cursor8.5 highInjected content writes a new MCP config, which needs no approval to create.
CVE-2025-531092025-07-02MCP filesystem server7.3 highSymlink traversal escapes the directories the server was allowed.
CVE-2025-541362025-08-02Cursor7.2 highAn approved MCP config is swapped for a malicious one without re-prompting.
CVE-2026-129572026-06-23Language Servers for AWSsee NVDOpening a malicious workspace auto-executes project configuration commands.
CVE-2026-309702026-03-10Coral Serversee NVDAgent sessions could be created without strong authentication.

Taxonomies and further reading

Map your own findings onto one of these rather than inventing a vocabulary.

Building rather than reading? The protocol pages show where each of these attacks lands in the flow.