Demystifying and Detecting Agentic Workflow Injection Vulnerabilities in GitHub Actions
Shenao Wang, Xinyi Hou, Zhao Liu, Yanjie Zhao, Xiao Cheng, Quanchen Zou, Xiangzheng Zhang, Haoyu Wang

TL;DR
This paper systematically studies agentic workflow injection vulnerabilities in GitHub Actions, introduces a taint-analysis tool, and reports numerous real-world exploitable security flaws affecting AI-assisted workflows.
Contribution
It is the first comprehensive analysis of AWI vulnerabilities in GitHub Actions, including a novel taint-tracking tool and extensive real-world vulnerability findings.
Findings
Identified 519 potential AWI vulnerabilities in real-world workflows.
Confirmed 496 vulnerabilities as exploitable, including 343 zero-day cases.
Developed TaintAWI, a taint-analysis tool for tracking untrusted data flows.
Abstract
GitHub Actions is increasingly used to deploy LLM-based agents for repository-centric tasks such as issue triage, pull-request review, code modification, and release assistance. These agentic workflows extend traditional CI/CD automation with agentic capabilities but also create a new injection surface. In this paper, we introduce Agentic Workflow Injection (AWI), a workflow-level injection flaw where untrusted GitHub event context, such as issue bodies, pull-request descriptions, or comments, is incorporated into agent prompts or agent-consumed inputs and converted into attacker-influenced behavior through agent tools or downstream workflow logic. We identify two core AWI patterns: Prompt-to-Agent (P2A), where untrusted content reaches an agent prompt boundary, and Prompt-to-Script (P2S), where attacker influence propagates through model- or agent-derived outputs into later scripts. We…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
