OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications:2026
A guide to the ten risk categories in the OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications:2026 framework, addressing autonomous AI decision-making, tool execution, identity boundaries, and multi-agent systems.
Edition 2026. Risk names follow the official OWASP publication.
ASI01:2026
Agent Goal Hijack
Agent Goal Hijack occurs when an attacker embeds prompt exploits in external data or RAG context to steer an autonomous agent away from its original user objective toward malicious tasks.
| What can go wrong | Untrusted prompt inputs or RAG context manipulate the agent's objective and decision logic, causing it to abandon original instructions and pursue malicious goals. |
|---|---|
| Business effect | An agent can be coerced into revealing secrets, approving unauthorized transactions, or corrupting critical system data. |
| First control to verify | Enforce goal-scoping and authorization bounds at the application layer. |

The diagram contrasts the unsafe route with the control that interrupts it. Select the image to inspect it at full size.
Why it matters
An agent can be coerced into revealing secrets, approving unauthorized transactions, or corrupting critical system data.
Risk-reduction focus
- Enforce goal-scoping and authorization bounds at the application layer.
- Isolate external untrusted data from system prompt instructions.
- Require human approval for high-risk goal transitions.
Go code example for a web application using Fiber v3
// Vulnerable pattern: trust request-controlled target
app.Get("/records/:id", func(c fiber.Ctx) error {
return c.JSON(repo.Find(c.Params("id")))
})
// Fixed pattern: authorize server-side
if !policy.CanRead(c.Locals("principal"), id) { return fiber.ErrForbidden }ASI02:2026
Tool Misuse and Exploitation
Tool Misuse and Exploitation happens when an agent invokes connected tools or APIs with unvalidated parameters, enabling an attacker to trigger harmful actions like data deletion or internal API calls.
| What can go wrong | An agent is tricked into calling integrated tools, database APIs, or external services with unvalidated parameters. |
|---|---|
| Business effect | Attackers leverage the agent's tool access to manipulate internal databases or exfiltrate confidential records. |
| First control to verify | Enforce strict parameter schemas and reject unexpected inputs. |

The diagram contrasts the unsafe route with the control that interrupts it. Select the image to inspect it at full size.
Why it matters
Attackers leverage the agent's tool access to manipulate internal databases or exfiltrate confidential records.
Risk-reduction focus
- Enforce strict parameter schemas and reject unexpected inputs.
- Apply least privilege access to tools used by agents.
- Audit and log all tool executions.
Go code example for a web application using Fiber v3
// Vulnerable pattern: trust request-controlled target
app.Get("/records/:id", func(c fiber.Ctx) error {
return c.JSON(repo.Find(c.Params("id")))
})
// Fixed pattern: authorize server-side
if !policy.CanRead(c.Locals("principal"), id) { return fiber.ErrForbidden }ASI03:2026
Identity and Privilege Abuse
Identity and Privilege Abuse occurs when an agent operates with excessive privileges or shared accounts, enabling unprivileged users to execute admin actions or cross tenant boundaries via the agent's identity.
| What can go wrong | An agent runs with overprivileged credentials or shared service accounts, letting normal users trigger elevated actions through the agent. |
|---|---|
| Business effect | Attackers achieve privilege escalation or breach multi-tenant user boundaries through the agent's identity. |
| First control to verify | Delegate user context explicitly to the agent. |

The diagram contrasts the unsafe route with the control that interrupts it. Select the image to inspect it at full size.
Why it matters
Attackers achieve privilege escalation or breach multi-tenant user boundaries through the agent's identity.
Risk-reduction focus
- Delegate user context explicitly to the agent.
- Prohibit shared admin or root service accounts.
- Revoke transient agent tokens upon task completion.
Go code example for a web application using Fiber v3
// Vulnerable pattern: trust request-controlled target
app.Get("/records/:id", func(c fiber.Ctx) error {
return c.JSON(repo.Find(c.Params("id")))
})
// Fixed pattern: authorize server-side
if !policy.CanRead(c.Locals("principal"), id) { return fiber.ErrForbidden }ASI04:2026
Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities
Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities involve incorporating untrusted third-party agents, plugins, or prompt templates that contain backdoors or data-exfiltration logic.
| What can go wrong | Third-party agents, plugins, prompt templates, or packages introduce unverified dependencies into the agent ecosystem. |
|---|---|
| Business effect | Malicious dependencies alter agent behavior, siphon sensitive data, or open unauthorized access channels. |
| First control to verify | Inventory all agent dependencies and verify digital signatures. |

The diagram contrasts the unsafe route with the control that interrupts it. Select the image to inspect it at full size.
Why it matters
Malicious dependencies alter agent behavior, siphon sensitive data, or open unauthorized access channels.
Risk-reduction focus
- Inventory all agent dependencies and verify digital signatures.
- Assess vendor security standards before integration.
- Continuously scan supporting software for vulnerabilities.
Go code example for a web application using Fiber v3
// Vulnerable pattern: trust request-controlled target
app.Get("/records/:id", func(c fiber.Ctx) error {
return c.JSON(repo.Find(c.Params("id")))
})
// Fixed pattern: authorize server-side
if !policy.CanRead(c.Locals("principal"), id) { return fiber.ErrForbidden }ASI05:2026
Unexpected Code Execution
Unexpected Code Execution occurs when an agent generates and executes dynamic code directly on host systems without sandbox isolation, allowing attackers to achieve remote code execution.
| What can go wrong | An agent generates and executes Python scripts, shell commands, or queries directly on the host server without isolation. |
|---|---|
| Business effect | An attacker achieves remote code execution (RCE) and gains full control over the underlying infrastructure. |
| First control to verify | Execute agent-generated code inside network-isolated sandboxes. |

The diagram contrasts the unsafe route with the control that interrupts it. Select the image to inspect it at full size.
Why it matters
An attacker achieves remote code execution (RCE) and gains full control over the underlying infrastructure.
Risk-reduction focus
- Execute agent-generated code inside network-isolated sandboxes.
- Enforce strict resource and runtime limits.
- Validate and inspect system commands prior to execution.
Go code example for a web application using Fiber v3
// Vulnerable pattern: trust request-controlled target
app.Get("/records/:id", func(c fiber.Ctx) error {
return c.JSON(repo.Find(c.Params("id")))
})
// Fixed pattern: authorize server-side
if !policy.CanRead(c.Locals("principal"), id) { return fiber.ErrForbidden }ASI06:2026
Memory and Context Poisoning
Memory and Context Poisoning happens when malicious data is written into an agent's long-term memory or vector store, corrupting its future reasoning and decision-making capabilities.
| What can go wrong | False data or embedded exploits corrupt an agent's short-term memory, vector stores, or long-term knowledge base. |
|---|---|
| Business effect | The agent produces biased decisions, outputs false guidance, or executes latent malicious instructions. |
| First control to verify | Validate data integrity and permissions before storing in memory. |

The diagram contrasts the unsafe route with the control that interrupts it. Select the image to inspect it at full size.
Why it matters
The agent produces biased decisions, outputs false guidance, or executes latent malicious instructions.
Risk-reduction focus
- Validate data integrity and permissions before storing in memory.
- Isolate memory stores between different tenants.
- Periodically audit memory quality and purge stale context.
Go code example for a web application using Fiber v3
// Vulnerable pattern: trust request-controlled target
app.Get("/records/:id", func(c fiber.Ctx) error {
return c.JSON(repo.Find(c.Params("id")))
})
// Fixed pattern: authorize server-side
if !policy.CanRead(c.Locals("principal"), id) { return fiber.ErrForbidden }ASI07:2026
Insecure Inter-Agent Communication
Insecure Inter-Agent Communication occurs when messages exchanged across a multi-agent network lack mutual authentication or encryption, allowing adversaries to spoof agents or tamper with commands.
| What can go wrong | Exchanges between agents in a multi-agent network lack mutual authentication, encryption, or message integrity checks. |
|---|---|
| Business effect | An attacker impersonates peer agents, tampers with inter-agent messages, or injects malicious requests into the network. |
| First control to verify | Encrypt and authenticate inter-agent communications using mTLS or signed tokens. |

The diagram contrasts the unsafe route with the control that interrupts it. Select the image to inspect it at full size.
Why it matters
An attacker impersonates peer agents, tampers with inter-agent messages, or injects malicious requests into the network.
Risk-reduction focus
- Encrypt and authenticate inter-agent communications using mTLS or signed tokens.
- Enforce message schemas between agents.
- Verify agent identity before processing commands.
Go code example for a web application using Fiber v3
// Vulnerable pattern: trust request-controlled target
app.Get("/records/:id", func(c fiber.Ctx) error {
return c.JSON(repo.Find(c.Params("id")))
})
// Fixed pattern: authorize server-side
if !policy.CanRead(c.Locals("principal"), id) { return fiber.ErrForbidden }ASI08:2026
Cascading Failures
Cascading Failures occur when an exploit or error in one agent rapidly propagates across interconnected agents due to missing circuit breakers and loop safeguards.
| What can go wrong | An error or exploit in one agent rapidly propagates through connected agents due to a lack of circuit breakers. |
|---|---|
| Business effect | The entire agent network crashes, consumes excessive resources, or causes widespread data corruption. |
| First control to verify | Enforce recursion depth and call-count limits on agent workflows. |

The diagram contrasts the unsafe route with the control that interrupts it. Select the image to inspect it at full size.
Why it matters
The entire agent network crashes, consumes excessive resources, or causes widespread data corruption.
Risk-reduction focus
- Enforce recursion depth and call-count limits on agent workflows.
- Deploy automated circuit breakers to isolate failing agents.
- Establish fail-safe isolation and recovery runbooks.
Go code example for a web application using Fiber v3
// Vulnerable pattern: trust request-controlled target
app.Get("/records/:id", func(c fiber.Ctx) error {
return c.JSON(repo.Find(c.Params("id")))
})
// Fixed pattern: authorize server-side
if !policy.CanRead(c.Locals("principal"), id) { return fiber.ErrForbidden }ASI09:2026
Human-Agent Trust Exploitation
Human-Agent Trust Exploitation leverages the anthropomorphic and persuasive nature of AI agents to deceive human operators into approving harmful actions or revealing credentials.
| What can go wrong | An adversary uses an agent's persuasive, human-like interaction to trick users into executing harmful actions. |
|---|---|
| Business effect | Users unsuspectingly disclose credentials, authorize wire transfers, or execute untrusted files. |
| First control to verify | Display clear indicators when interacting with AI agents. |

The diagram contrasts the unsafe route with the control that interrupts it. Select the image to inspect it at full size.
Why it matters
Users unsuspectingly disclose credentials, authorize wire transfers, or execute untrusted files.
Risk-reduction focus
- Display clear indicators when interacting with AI agents.
- Require out-of-band verification for critical transactions.
- Train users on social engineering risks involving agents.
Go code example for a web application using Fiber v3
// Vulnerable pattern: trust request-controlled target
app.Get("/records/:id", func(c fiber.Ctx) error {
return c.JSON(repo.Find(c.Params("id")))
})
// Fixed pattern: authorize server-side
if !policy.CanRead(c.Locals("principal"), id) { return fiber.ErrForbidden }ASI10:2026
Rogue Agents
Rogue Agents are autonomous agents that deviate from their intended goals, enter uncontrolled loops, or become unresponsive to admin controls, draining system resources and triggering unintended traffic.
| What can go wrong | A compromised or malfunctioning agent deviates from its mission, enters infinite loops, or executes unauthorized actions out of control. |
|---|---|
| Business effect | Cloud resources are depleted, costs skyrocket, and unauthorized traffic is flooded toward external targets. |
| First control to verify | Implement real-time behavioral monitoring and anomaly detection for agents. |

The diagram contrasts the unsafe route with the control that interrupts it. Select the image to inspect it at full size.
Why it matters
Cloud resources are depleted, costs skyrocket, and unauthorized traffic is flooded toward external targets.
Risk-reduction focus
- Implement real-time behavioral monitoring and anomaly detection for agents.
- Provide an emergency kill switch to instantly revoke agent tokens.
- Set strict budget and runtime caps per execution task.
Go code example for a web application using Fiber v3
// Vulnerable pattern: trust request-controlled target
app.Get("/records/:id", func(c fiber.Ctx) error {
return c.JSON(repo.Find(c.Params("id")))
})
// Fixed pattern: authorize server-side
if !policy.CanRead(c.Locals("principal"), id) { return fiber.ErrForbidden }Compliance Readiness Self-Assessment
Select items your organization has completed to evaluate your readiness score.
