The security debt of browsing AI agents

At 3 a.m. during a red team exercise, we watched customer’s autonomous web agent cheerfully leak the CTO’s credentials - because a single malicious div tag on internal github issue page told it to. The agent ran on Browser Use, the open source framework that just collected a headline-grabbing $17 million seed round.

That 90-second proof-of-concept illustrates a larger threat: while venture money races to make large-language-model (LLM) agents “click” faster, their social, organizational, and technical trust boundaries remain an afterthought. Autonomous browsing agents now schedule travel, reconcile invoices, and read private inboxes, yet the industry treats security as a feature patch, not a design premise.

Our argument is simple: agentic systems that interpret and act on live web content must adopt a security-first architecture before their adoption outpaces our ability to contain failure.

Agent explosion

Browser Use sits at the center of today’s agent explosion. In just a few months it has acquired more than 60,000 GitHub stars and a $17 million seed round led by Felicis with participation from Paul Graham and others, positioning itself as the “middleware layer” between LLMs and the live web.

Similar toolkits - HyperAgent, SurfGPT, AgentLoom - are shipping weekly plug-ins that promise friction-free automation of everything from expense approval to source-code review. Market researchers already count 82 % of large companies running at least one AI agent in production workflows and forecast 1.3 billion enterprise agent users by 2028.

But the same openness that fuels innovation also exposes a significant attack surface: DOM parsing, prompt templates, headless browsers, third-party APIs, and real-time user data intersect in unpredictable ways.

Our new study, "The Hidden Dangers of Browsing AI Agents" offers the first end-to-end threat model for browsing agents and provides actionable guidance for securing their deployment in real-world environments.

To address discovered threats, we propose a defense in depth strategy incorporating input sanitization, planner executor isolation, formal analyzers, and session safeguards. These measures protect against both initial access and post exploitation attack vectors.

White-box analysis

Through white-box analysis of Browser Use, we demonstrate how untrusted web content can hijack agent behavior and lead to critical cybersecurity breaches. Our findings include prompt injection, domain validation bypass, and credential exfiltration, evidenced by a disclosed CVE and a working proof of concept exploit - all without tripping today’s LLM safety filters.

Among the findings:

1. Prompt-injection pivoting. A single off-screen element injected a “system” instruction that forced the agent to email its session storage to an attacker.

2. Domain-validation bypass. Browser Use’s heuristic URL checker failed on unicode homographs, letting adversaries smuggle commands from look-alike domains.

3. Silent lateral movement. Once an agent has the user’s cookies, it can impersonate them across any connected SaaS property, blending into legitimate automation logs.

These aren’t theoretical edge cases; they are inherent consequences of giving an LLM permission to act rather than merely answer, which acts a root cause for the outlined exploit above. Once that line is crossed, every byte of input (visible or hidden) becomes potential initial access payload.

To be sure, open source visibility and red team disclosure accelerate fixes - Browser Use shipped a patch within days of our CVE report. And defenders can already sandbox agents, sanitize inputs, and restrict tool scopes. But those mitigations are optional add-ons, whereas the threat is systemic. Relying on post-hoc hardening mimics the early browser wars, when security followed functionality, and drive-by downloads became the norm.

Architectural problem

Governments are beginning to notice the architectural problem. The NIST AI Risk-Management Framework urges organizations to weigh privacy, safety and societal impact as first-class engineering requirements. Europe’s AI Act introduces transparency, technical-documentation and post-market monitoring duties for providers of general-purpose models rules that will almost certainly cover agent frameworks such as Browser Use.

Across the Atlantic, the U.S. SEC’s 2023 cyber-risk disclosure rule expects public companies to reveal material security incidents quickly and to detail risk-management practices annually. Analysts already advise Fortune 500 boards to treat AI-powered automation as a headline cyber-risk in upcoming 10-K filings. Reuters: “When an autonomous agent leaks credentials, executives will have scant wiggle room to argue that the breach was “immaterial.”

Investors funneling eight-figure sums into agentic start-ups must now reserve an equal share of runway for threat-modeling, formal verification, and continuous adversarial evaluation. Enterprises piloting these tools should require:

Isolation by default. Agents should separate planner, executor and credential oracle into mutually distrustful processes, talking only via signed, size-bounded protobuf messages.

Differential output binding. Borrow from safety-critical engineering: require a human co-signature for any sensitive action.

Continuous red-team pipelines. Make adversarial HTML and jailbreak prompts part of CI/CD. If the model fails a single test, block release.

Societal SBOMs. Beyond software bills of materials, vendors should publish security-impact surfaces: exactly which data, roles and rights an attacker gains if the agent tips. This aligns with the AI-RMF’s call for transparency regarding individual and societal risks.

Regulatory stress tests. Critical-infrastructure deployments should pass third-party red-team exams whose high-level findings are public, mirroring banking stress-tests and reinforcing EU and U.S. disclosure regimes.

The security debt

The web did not start secure and grow convenient; it started convenient, and we are still paying the security debt. Let us not rehearse that history with autonomous browsing agents. Imagine past cyber incidents multiplied by autonomous agents that work at machine speed and hold persistent credentials for every SaaS tool, CI/CD pipeline, and IoT sensor in an enterprise. The next “invisible div tag” could do more than leak a password: it could rewrite PLC set-points at a water-treatment plant, misroute 911 calls, or bulk-download the pension records of an entire state.

If the next $17 million goes to demo reels instead of hardened boundaries, the 3 a.m. secret you lose might not just embarrass a CTO - it might open the sluice gate to poison supplies, stall fuel deliveries, or crash emergency-dispatch consoles. That risk is no longer theoretical; it is actuarial, regulatory, and, ultimately, personal for every investor, engineer, and policy-maker in the loop.

Security first or failure by default for agentic AI is therefore not a philosophical debate; it is a deadline. Either we front-load the cost of trust now, or we will pay many times over when the first agent-driven breach jumps the gap from the browser to the real world.

We feature the best AI chatbot for business.

This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro's Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro