Risk · R-049 · Agentic & Autonomous Systems

Agent goal hijack

Injected or poisoned content redirects an agent's objective or plan, so the agent pursues an attacker's goal with the organisation's authority and access.

Severity
High
Audience
Heads-of · Practitioner
Frameworks
AML.T0080 · AST05 · ASI01 · LLM01
Responsible AI domain
Reviewed
2026-11-10

What it is

Goal hijack is the redirection of what an agent is trying to achieve, as distinct from a single wrong output. It builds on prompt injection but is a separate risk, because an agent plans across many steps: one accepted instruction can change every later step, and the changed goal can persist. Corruption of stored memory is covered in agent memory and context poisoning.

How it happens

  • An instruction is hidden in a document, web page, email or tool result that the agent reads while working.
  • The instruction is phrased as a correction or an update from the user, so the agent revises its plan.
  • The changed goal is carried forward through the agent's own reasoning and into sub-tasks it delegates.

Why it matters

The agent's actions remain individually plausible, so nothing looks wrong at the level of a single step. Data can be sent outside the organisation, transactions initiated, or records altered, each by a legitimate tool call made for an illegitimate purpose.

Warning signs

  • An agent's plan changes after it reads external content.
  • Tool calls unrelated to the user's request appear in the trace.
  • Outbound requests go to destinations that the task did not need.
  • The final answer does not match the task that was set.

Who owns it

The system owner is accountable. Security engineering owns the defences against injected instructions; the business owner decides which actions need approval whatever the agent believes its goal to be.

In practice

An agent that summarises supplier invoices reads a PDF containing white-on-white text telling it to update the supplier's bank details before summarising. It has a tool for maintaining supplier records and uses it. The same pattern generalises to any agent that both reads untrusted content and can change something.

Mitigating controls

Primary controls

Approval gates for high-impact agent actions Preventive
A hijacked plan still needs approval before a high-impact action. Before an agent takes an action above a defined impact threshold, or one that cannot be reversed, a designated person reviews the exact action and approves or rejects it.
Input filtering and injection defence Preventive
Screens the content an agent reads for instructions that would redirect it. User input and all retrieved or tool-supplied content are screened for hostile instructions and passed to the model marked as data, separate from the system's own instructions.

Supporting controls

Agent action tracing Detective
Records the instruction that changed the plan. Every agent action is recorded with the instruction, plan, tool call, result and identity that produced it, in a form that allows the sequence to be reconstructed.
Least-privilege agent identity and permissions Preventive
Limits what a hijacked agent can reach. Each agent has its own identity, with permissions scoped to its task and to the user it is acting for, short-lived and reviewed like any other entitlement.

Framework and clause references

FrameworkClauseTitle
MITRE ATLASAML.T0080AI Agent Context Poisoning Poisoning of agent context.
OWASP Agentic Skills Top 10AST05Untrusted External Instructions Untrusted external instructions.
OWASP Top 10 for Agentic ApplicationsASI01Agent Goal Hijack The entry this risk is named for.
OWASP Top 10 for LLM ApplicationsLLM01Prompt Injection The underlying injection.

Sources

OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications OWASP GenAI Security Project · framework
MITRE ATLAS MITRE · framework

Related terms

How to cite

Axiom Verity (2026). Agent goal hijack. Reference Library, R-049. https://axiom-verity.com/risks/agent-goal-hijack. Reviewed 2026-11-10.