Skip to main content
AI Security

AI Agent Security Testing

Your agents act. We test what they can be made to do.

AI agents don't just answer, they act. We test the tools, permissions, and autonomy behind your agents: MCP servers, over-permissioned coding agents, and the injection paths that turn an agent against your own systems.

Overview

An AI agent is a language model with hands. It connects to tools, calls functions, reads and writes to your systems, and increasingly acts on its own across multiple steps. That autonomy is what makes agents useful, and what makes them dangerous when an attacker can influence them. We test agents adversarially: recovering system prompts to enumerate the tools they can call, abusing connections that carry more access than the job needs, exploiting the MCP servers that broker that access, and planting instructions in the content agents process. The coding agents reviewing your pull requests and the chat agents wired into your internal tools are where we start, because that's where access and autonomy concentrate.

What We Test

We target eight areas where an agent's ability to act becomes an attacker's ability to act through it.

Tool & Function Abuse

Agents connect to real tools: repositories, ticketing, cloud APIs, internal services. We manipulate the agent into misusing those connections, making calls and taking actions well beyond its intended job.

MCP Server Security

Model Context Protocol servers hand agents their tools. We evaluate and exploit that layer against the OWASP MCP Top 10: tool poisoning and tool-description injection (line-jumping), shadow and over-permissioned servers, supply-chain tampering, and injection through the data an MCP tool returns.

Over-Permissioned Agents

Coding agents that review pull requests, check code quality, or triage vulnerabilities often run with write access, secrets, or repo scope they never needed. We find the gap between what the agent does and what it can do.

System Prompt & Tool Enumeration

We jailbreak the agent to recover its system prompt, then enumerate the tools and functions it can call. That map becomes the target list for the rest of the test.

Indirect Prompt Injection

Agents act on content they process: a pull request, an issue, a document, a web page. We plant instructions in that content to hijack the agent's next action without ever touching the chat window.

Autonomy & Action Chains

Multi-step and multi-agent workflows let one manipulated decision cascade. We test where a single injection turns into a chain of unauthorized actions, and whether a human is actually in the loop where it counts.

Memory & Context Poisoning

Agents that keep memory or pull from shared context can be poisoned. We plant content that persists across turns or sessions to steer the agent's later decisions, including shared-memory poisoning in multi-agent setups.

Inter-Agent Communication & Identity

Where agents call and trust other agents, we test the messages between them and the identities behind them: spoofed or impersonated agents, unauthenticated inter-agent calls, and a rogue agent injected into the workflow.

Our Approach

We test agents the way we test any target, with an attacker's mindset, adapted to the tools, permissions, and autonomy that make agents different.

1

Recon & Tool Mapping

We map the agent's capabilities, connected tools, MCP servers, and data sources. What the agent can reach defines what an attacker will aim it at.

2

Access & Enumeration

We jailbreak guardrails to recover system prompts and enumerate the available tools and functions, building the attack surface from the inside out.

3

Exploitation

We abuse over-permissioned tools, chain actions across steps and agents, and exploit MCP connections to prove real impact: unauthorized changes, data access, and actions the agent was never meant to take.

4

Post-Exploitation & Pivoting

An abused agent is a foothold. From there we do what an attacker would: use the agent's credentials and tool access to escalate privileges, reach systems beyond the agent's mandate, and move laterally into your repositories, cloud, and internal services. The point is how far a compromised agent reaches, not just that it can be manipulated.

5

Documentation

Every finding comes with reproduction steps, evidence, severity, and remediation, mapped to the OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications (2026) and MITRE ATLAS techniques.

Common Findings

These are issues we frequently discover during ai agent security testing engagements:

Over-Permissioned Code Agent

Critical

A PR-review or code-quality agent running with write access to the repo, CI secrets, or production systems it never needed. One injection turns it into an insider.

Exploitable MCP Connection

High

An MCP server the agent trusts implicitly, exposing tools with broader reach than the task requires or returning attacker-controlled data the agent acts on without question.

System Prompt & Tool Disclosure

High

The agent's system prompt and tool list recovered through jailbreaking, handing an attacker the full map of what to target next.

Indirect Injection via Processed Content

High

Instructions planted in a pull request, issue, or document that the agent reads and acts on, redirecting its behavior with no access to the chat interface.

Missing Human-in-the-Loop

High

High-impact actions (merging code, moving money, changing configuration) executed autonomously, with no approval gate an attacker has to get past.

Cascading Multi-Agent Action

High

One manipulated agent instructing another, so a single injection propagates into a chain of actions no single guardrail is positioned to catch.

Common Questions

How is agent testing different from LLM penetration testing?

LLM penetration testing attacks the model: prompt injection, jailbreaking, data extraction. Agent testing attacks what the model can do. Once an AI has tools, memory, and the ability to act, the risk moves from what it says to what it does with your systems. We test both, but the agent work targets tool abuse, permissions, and autonomous actions.

Do you test coding agents and PR-review bots?

Yes, and they're one of the highest-value targets we see. Agents that review pull requests, check code quality, or triage vulnerabilities routinely run with repo write access, CI secrets, and production reach. We test whether an attacker can manipulate that agent, through a crafted PR or injected content, into using access it should never have had.

What is MCP and why does it matter?

Model Context Protocol is the connective layer that gives an agent its tools and data. If an agent trusts an MCP server with more reach than it needs, or acts on data an MCP tool returns without checking it, that server becomes an attack path straight into your environment. We evaluate and exploit the MCP layer directly.

Do you need production access to test our agents?

For actions that change state (merging code, sending messages, moving data), we usually start in a staging or sandboxed setup and validate key findings in production with coordination. For read-oriented agents, production testing is often feasible from the start.

Ready to Strengthen Your Defenses?

Schedule a free consultation with our security experts to discuss your organization's needs.

Or call us directly at (445) 273-2873