Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper systematically characterizes the fragility of command denylists in terminal AI agents, revealing that a significant majority (69.0–98.6%) of these denylists fail to effectively block expected commands. The authors introduce CmdNeedle, an LLM-driven pipeline that identifies and repairs bypass commands through iterative feedback from a sandbox validator. The findings highlight critical vulnerabilities in command security mechanisms, underscoring the need for more robust solutions in AI agent design.
An alarming 69% to 98% of command denylists in terminal AI agents are ineffective, revealing a critical security gap in AI command execution.
The adoption of AI agents is increasing rapidly. Terminal AI agents, i.e., AI agents that run in terminal environments, are a widely used type of AI agents. Terminal AI agents rely heavily on shell command execution to interact with the host systems. They adopt a three-list command-gating mechanism to mitigate security risks introduced by command execution, with denylists serving as the load-bearing component. However, modern operating systems often ship a large, ever-expanding set of shell commands with complex functionalities. Our observation is that even a built-in denylist of Claude Code, well-maintained by its developers, can overlook bypass commands that invalidate its effectiveness. Such negligence leads to fragile command denylists that cannot even block operations that practitioners expect them to block. This paper presents the first systematic characterization of command denylist fragility in terminal AI agents. The paper formalizes the command denylist fragility problem and proposes an LLM-driven pipeline, CmdNeedle, to detect such fragility. It prompts the LLM to propose possible bypasses and iteratively repairs them using feedback from a validator that executes them in a sandbox. In the evaluation, we applied CmdNeedle to 1,709 real-world command denylists (containing 13,332 denylist rules) collected from GitHub. The evaluation shows several key findings, including that 69.0--98.6% of the denylists are fragile, that this fragility occurs consistently across projects and agents, and the validity of several possible root causes for this fragility. Our pipeline and findings will hopefully facilitate future research and practice regarding the command denylists used by AI agents.
