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
- Lifecycle stage
- 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
| Framework | Clause | Title |
|---|---|---|
| MITRE ATLAS | AML.T0080 | AI Agent Context Poisoning Poisoning of agent context. |
| OWASP Agentic Skills Top 10 | AST05 | Untrusted External Instructions Untrusted external instructions. |
| OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications | ASI01 | Agent Goal Hijack The entry this risk is named for. |
| OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications | LLM01 | Prompt 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.
Found an error or a better source? Report a correction.