OSGuard: A Benchmark for Safety in Computer-Use Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.15034v1
• Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 00:32:24 GMT
• Title: OSGuard: A Benchmark for Safety in Computer-Use Agents
• Abstract summary: OSGuard is a benchmark suite for evaluating safety in computer-use agents under benign, unchanged user instructions.<n> OSGuard contains an action-level benchmark for local guardrail decisions and a risk-augmented execution suite for end-to-end evaluation.
• Score: 12.395093977641581
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Computer-use agents are increasingly evaluated by whether they complete realistic desktop and web tasks. However, task success alone can miss failures in which an agent reaches the nominal goal through an unsafe shortcut. We introduce OSGuard, a dual-granularity benchmark suite for evaluating safety in computer-use agents under benign, unchanged user instructions. OSGuard contains an action-level benchmark for local guardrail decisions and a risk-augmented execution suite for end-to-end evaluation. The action-level benchmark consists of contextualized proposed actions labeled as allowed, unrelated, or unsafe, each judged relative to the original instruction and current interface state. The execution suite contains manually constructed OSWorld-derived task variants in which the original task remains achievable, but the environment is modified to introduce latent hazards such as destructive overwrites, etc. Each variant is paired with augmented evaluators that retain the original task-success criterion while adding explicit state-based safety invariants, allowing us to distinguish safe completions from unsafe completions that satisfy the nominal task objective. Our experimental results on OSGuard show that current multimodal guardrails can perform well on isolated action judgments, while risk-augmented execution exposes remaining gaps between local oversight and reliable end-to-end safety. This dual-granularity design enables more precise diagnosis of whether models can both recognize unsafe proposed actions and improve full-task safety when deployed as guardrails.

Related papers

• HazardAuditor: From Executable Threats to Safer Computer-Use Agents [50.06351661912873]
  Existing guard models target static prompts and responses.<n>Existing safety platforms produce evaluation verdicts rather than the normalized supervision a guard model needs to learn.<n>We introduce HazardAuditor, an execution-grounded framework that closes both gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-14T07:09:33Z)
• From Risk Classification to Action Plan Remediation: A Guardrail Feedback Driven Framework for LLM Agents [35.39244077703096]
  Guardrails typically safeguard agents by evaluating proposed actions or inputs before execution.<n>Existing guardrails often flag the entire task uniformly as unsafe, thereby blocking the threat but sacrificing the benign part.<n>We introduce TRIAD, a guardrail-integrated agent framework that leverages guardrail-generated verbal feedback as a guiding signal to keep the agent aligned with benign objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T07:34:35Z)
• SeClaw: Spec-Driven Security Task Synthesis for Evaluating Autonomous Agents [87.26967184869198]
  SeClaw is a framework that combines specification-driven security task synthesis with execution-based security evaluation for Autonomous agents.<n> benchmark covers risks arising from resources, user tasks, environments, and intrinsic agent behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T14:23:42Z)
• Trust No Tool: Evaluating and Defending LLM Agents under Untrusted Tool Feedback [38.251599309409]
  We study a different failure mode, cognitive poisoning, in which a malicious tool behaves plausibly during exploration.<n>We present VISTA-Guard, a backbone-agnostic framework for final-action risk scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T13:51:34Z)
• CORA: Conformal Risk-Controlled Agents for Safeguarded Mobile GUI Automation [68.53387633351484]
  We propose CORA (COnformal Risk-controlled GUI Agent), a post-policy, pre-action safeguarding framework that provides statistical guarantees on harmful executed actions.<n> CORA reformulates safety as selective action execution: we train a Guardian model to estimate action-conditional risk for each proposed step.<n>To rigorously evaluate this paradigm, we introduce Phone-Harm, a new benchmark of mobile safety violations with step-level harm labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T09:41:21Z)
• RoboSafe: Safeguarding Embodied Agents via Executable Safety Logic [56.38397499463889]
  Embodied agents powered by vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly capable of executing complex real-world tasks.<n>However, they remain vulnerable to hazardous instructions that may trigger unsafe behaviors.<n>We propose RoboSafe, a runtime safeguard for embodied agents through executable predicate-based safety logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-24T15:01:26Z)
• Indirect Prompt Injections: Are Firewalls All You Need, or Stronger Benchmarks? [58.48689960350828]
  We show that a simple, modular and model-agnostic defense operating at the agent--tool interface achieves perfect security with high utility.<n>We employ a defense based on two firewalls: a Tool-Input Firewall (Minimizer) and a Tool-Output Firewall (Sanitizer)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T18:09:02Z)
• SafeAgentBench: A Benchmark for Safe Task Planning of Embodied LLM Agents [58.65256663334316]
  We present SafeAgentBench -- the first benchmark for safety-aware task planning of embodied LLM agents in interactive simulation environments.<n>SafeAgentBench includes: (1) an executable, diverse, and high-quality dataset of 750 tasks, rigorously curated to cover 10 potential hazards and 3 task types; (2) SafeAgentEnv, a universal embodied environment with a low-level controller, supporting multi-agent execution with 17 high-level actions for 9 state-of-the-art baselines; and (3) reliable evaluation methods from both execution and semantic perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T18:55:58Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.