As artificial intelligence continues to transform how we interact with the web, a new question surfaces: are browser-based AI agents more dangerous than the average human user? With the implementation of AI agents embedded in browsers for tasks such as searching, auto-filling forms, and even autonomous browsing, cybersecurity experts have begun to pay close attention. A recent study conducted by SquareX, a cybersecurity firm specializing in browser threats, provides crucial insights into whether AI agents may pose a greater risk than human users online.

The implications of browser AI agents go beyond convenience or efficiency. These tools can act autonomously, making decisions about what to click, what data to submit, and which sites to trust. This automation has prompted a growing concern about their susceptibility to cyber threats. SquareX’s research not only evaluates these risks but also compares them directly to those associated with human behavior online.

Understanding Browser AI Agents

Browser AI agents are software-driven systems that operate inside a browser environment, designed to behave with a certain level of autonomy. Whether embedded directly by browser developers or enabled through third-party extensions, these agents can read and interpret content, simulate keystrokes, and act on behalf of the user. Prominent examples include AI-based shopping assistants, writing tools, and personal finance managers.

While they aim to enhance user experience and efficiency, such capabilities inevitably bring new potential vulnerabilities into the browser ecosystem.

SquareX Study Overview

To investigate the potential risks posed by browser AI agents, SquareX conducted a six-month study comprising data from:

• 150,000 browser sessions (75,000 involving AI agents and 75,000 controlled by human users).
• 14 popular AI-enabled browser extensions, including commercial and open-source agents.
• 12 commonly visited high-risk sites and phishing decoy pages.

This comprehensive study was designed to mimic real-world browsing conditions and targeted both standard user behavior and more sensitive activities, such as online banking, account login processes, and e-commerce transactions.

Key Metrics Evaluated

SquareX focused on several critical indicators:

• Click behavior on phishing links
• Data submission tendencies on unknown forms
• Detection and avoidance of browser-based attacks
• Privacy adherence in terms of data leakage and cookie handling

Findings: Are AI Agents More or Less Prone to Risk?

The results of the research were both illuminating and concerning. Broadly, SquareX found that AI agents interacted with potential threats more frequently than human users. Specifically:

• AI agents clicked on phishing links 22% more often than human users.
• They filled out and submitted forms on malicious pages 26% more frequently.
• Browser-level protections were sometimes bypassed due to AI misinterpretation of security warnings, leading to a rise in credential exposure.
• AI agents showed limited ability to detect social engineering cues—a strength more commonly observed in human users.

One surprising result was that even well-trained language model-based agents struggled with nuanced textual cues in online threats. Their reliance on syntax and statistical patterns, rather than contextual awareness, made them vulnerable to manipulative content that human users would instinctively suspect.

Human Users Still Make Mistakes Too

Despite the elevated AI risk indicators, the study made it clear that human users are far from infallible. Over 40% of human-controlled sessions involved at least one potential risky action, such as clicking a suspicious ad or enabling a pop-up dialog. Humans also showed inconsistent attention to browser warnings and privacy indicators.

The key difference, however, was that human users generally paused or hesitated before risky interactions—time that allowed browser defenses or user doubt to kick in. AI agents, operating at higher speeds and without emotional judgment, tended to act immediately.

Key Risks Unique to AI Browsers

SquareX identified three core vulnerabilities introduced by browser AI agents:

1. Speed without judgment: AI agents act quickly and lack human intuition, making snap decisions that bypass built-in protections.
2. Opaque decision making: Their browsing strategy is often not visible to the end-user, reducing oversight and making post-incident audits harder.
3. Data leakage patterns: Because they often seek forms to fill or data to complete tasks, AI agents inadvertently expose personal or corporate information to untrusted domains.

These findings suggest that AI tools in browsers should be designed with enhanced auditing and transparency features, especially when acting autonomously on high-risk websites.

What Can Be Done: Recommendations

SquareX concluded the study with a list of recommendations aimed at developers, enterprises, and general browser users:

For Developers:

• Implement real-time transparency logs to monitor AI actions.
• Engineer behavior overrides when AI agents interact with unknown forms or authentication fields.
• Use AI-to-AI checks—one agent verifying the behavior of another—for critical actions like purchases or logins.

For Enterprises:

• Restrict AI agent functions only to whitelisted domains.
• Maintain audit trails for AI-led browser sessions, especially on finance or HR systems.
• Integrate anomaly detection systems tailored for AI-driven interactions.

For End Users:

• Review browser extension permissions regularly.
• Only install AI agents with verifiable credentials and clear data handling policies.
• Disable agent activity on sensitive pages like login, banking, or government sites unless absolutely necessary.

Looking Ahead: Is Regulation on the Horizon?

With such software clearly straddling the line between convenience and vulnerability, regulatory interest is increasing. In several regions, digital authorities are beginning to address how AI-based tools handle personal data and consent-based browsing activity. If AI agents are shown to consistently put users at higher risk, we may soon see new standards governing their design and deployment.

Some cybersecurity analysts even suggest the creation of “browser AI certifications,” aimed to verify that AI agents pass certain behavioral and security benchmarks before being made available to the public. Others propose sandbox isolation for AI agents, restricting their access until web domains meet explicit threat-level criteria.

Conclusion: Proceed with Caution

The results of the SquareX study underscore a critical truth: technology cannot entirely replace human judgment—at least, not yet. While browser AI agents offer remarkable capabilities, they also bring with them new and potentially significant risks. In several critical areas, including phishing resistance, contextual awareness, and data withholding, human users still outperform their digital counterparts.

SquareX’s findings are a call to action for developers, enterprises, and users alike. The lesson is not to abandon browser AI tools, but to use them with greater care, better governance, and with full awareness of their limitations. As the web evolves and AI’s role in it expands, we must prioritize building systems that are not only intelligent—but also trustworthy and secure.