Journal of Information Security and Applications· 2026Q1
Security threat modeling for emerging AI-agent protocols: A comparative analysis of MCP, A2A, agora, and ANP
- 1citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A novel threat-modeling framework reveals design-induced security gaps in four leading AI-agent communication protocols (MCP, A2A, Agora, ANP), with no protocol offering uniformly low risk across all lifecycle stages.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- A new structured threat-modeling approach was developed to analyze AI-agent communication protocols (MCP, A2A, Agora, ANP).
- A qualitative risk-assessment framework evaluated twelve protocol-level vulnerabilities across creation, operation, and update phases.
- None of the four analyzed protocols exhibit uniformly low risk across all lifecycle stages.
- A measurement-driven MCP case study showed ambiguous tool-provider resolution can cause wrong-provider execution.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
The rapid development of AI-agent communication protocols, including the Model Context Protocol (MCP), Agent2Agent (A2A), Agora, and the Agent Network Protocol (ANP), is reshaping how autonomous agents interact with tools, services, and one another. Although these protocols support scalable multi-agent interaction and cross-organizational interoperability, their protocol-level security properties remain insufficiently studied. In particular, no unified framework currently exists for comparing their security risks across the protocol lifecycle. This paper presents a systematic security analysis of four emerging AI-agent communication protocols. First, we develop a structured threat-modeling approach that examines protocol architectures, trust assumptions, interaction patterns, and lifecycle behaviors to identify protocol-specific and cross-protocol risk surfaces. Second, we introduce a qualitative risk-assessment framework covering twelve protocol-level vulnerabilities across the creation/configuration, operation, and update/maintenance phases. The framework evaluates likelihood, impact, and overall risk using common protocol-independent criteria and protocol-specific evidence. Third, we present a measurement-driven MCP case study that formalizes the absence of mandatory provider-bound tool identity validation as a falsifiable security claim. The experiments demonstrate that ambiguous tool-provider resolution can result in wrong-provider execution under representative resolver policies. The comparative assessment indicates that none of the four protocols provides uniformly low risk across all lifecycle stages. The assessment of all four protocols is grounded in protocol specifications, published evidence, and architecture-based reasoning, whereas the empirical validation is intentionally limited to the MCP case study. Overall, the findings reveal design-induced security gaps and provide actionable guidance for protocol designers, enterprise adopters, and future standardization efforts.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Sociology and Political Science
Sociology and Political ScienceSocial Sciences