Detection of adversarial intent in Human-AI teams using LLMs

Large Language Model (LLM)-powered agents demonstrate strong capabilities in autonomous task execution, tool use, and multi-step reasoning. However, their increasing autonomy also introduces a new attack surface: adversarial interactions can manipulate agent behavior through direct prompt injection, indirect content attacks, and multi-turn escalation strategies. Existing defense strategies focus on prompt-level filtering and rule-based guardrails, which are often insufficient when risk emerges gradually across interaction sequences. In this work, we propose a complementary defense mechanism: a low-latency fraud detection layer for detecting adversarial interaction patterns in LLM-powered agents. Instead of determining whether a single prompt is malicious, our approach models risk over interaction trajectories using structured runtime features derived from prompt characteristics, session dynamics, tool usage, execution context, and fraud-inspired signals. The detection layer can be implemented using lightweight models leading to low-latency real-time deployments. To evaluate the framework, we construct a synthetic corpus of 12,000 multi-turn agent interactions generated from parameterized templates that simulate realistic agentic workflows. Using 42 structured features and an XGBoost classifier, our detector achieves over 9 times faster than LLM-based detectors. Through the experiment and ablation studies, our work suggests that interaction-level behavioral detection should become a core component of deployment-time defense for LLM-powered agents.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly rely on external tools (file operations, API calls, database transactions) to autonomously complete complex multi-step tasks. Practitioners deploy defense-trained models to protect against prompt injection attacks that manipulate agent behavior through malicious observations or retrieved content. We reveal a fundamental capability-alignment paradox: defense training designed to improve safety systematically destroys agent competence while failing to prevent sophisticated attacks. Evaluating defended models against undefended baselines across 97 agent tasks and 1,000 adversarial prompts, we uncover three systematic biases unique to multi-step agents. Agent incompetence bias manifests as immediate tool execution breakdown, with models refusing or generating invalid actions on benign tasks before observing any external content. Cascade amplification bias causes early failures to propagate through retry loops, pushing defended models to timeout on 99% of tasks compared to 13% for baselines. Trigger bias leads to paradoxical security degradation where defended models perform worse than undefended baselines while straightforward attacks bypass defenses at high rates. Root cause analysis reveals these biases stem from shortcut learning: models overfit to surface attack patterns rather than semantic threat understanding, evidenced by extreme variance in defense effectiveness across attack categories. Our findings demonstrate that current defense paradigms optimize for single-turn refusal benchmarks while rendering multi-step agents fundamentally unreliable, necessitating new approaches that preserve tool execution competence under adversarial conditions.

Defenses against indirect prompt injection (IPI) in tool-using LLM agents share two structural weaknesses. First, they all attempt to prevent attacks rather than detect the compromises that slip through. Second, they have only been evaluated in English, leaving users of low-resource languages such as Kurdish and Arabic without tested protection. This paper addresses both gaps with AgentShield, a deception-based detection framework that places three layers of traps inside the agent's tool interface: fake tools, fake credentials, and allowlisted parameters. The same trap triggers serve as high-precision labels for a self-supervised classifier. An LLM agent that follows an attacker's hidden instruction almost always touches one of these traps, which gives both a real-time compromise signal and a zero-FP label for training a downstream detector without manual annotation. Across 176 cross-lingual attack prompts and four LLMs from three providers, and because modern LLMs already refuse most IPI attempts on their own (attack success rate <= 10%), AgentShield's job is to catch the attacks that do slip through. On commercial models, it catches 90.7%-100% of such successful attacks, with zero false alarms on 485 normal-use tests. It survives a systematic adaptive-attack evaluation with zero evasion on commercial models, and the self-supervised classifier transfers across models and languages without retraining.