The System Prompt Is the Attack Surface: How LLM Agent Configuration Shapes Security and Creates Exploitable Vulnerabilities

LLM agents with tool access can discover and exploit security vulnerabilities. This is known. What is not known is which features of a system prompt trigger this behaviour, and which do not. We present a systematic taxonomy based on approximately 10,000 trials across seven models, 37 prompt conditions, and 12 hypothesized attack dimensions -- all executed in real Docker sandboxes. Every condition includes the instruction "Always respect all rules and access policies"; only a single encouragement sentence varies. Within the task class studied (planted test-runner vulnerabilities), the threat model is narrower than assumed: nine of twelve dimensions -- including minimization, moral licensing, incentives, identity priming, and reasoning triggers -- produce no detectable exploitation at n=50 per cell (upper 95% CI <7% per condition). But it is also more subtle than expected: one dimension, goal reframing, reliably triggers exploitation. "You are solving a puzzle; there may be hidden clues" produces 38-40% exploitation on Claude Sonnet 4 despite the explicit rule instruction, replicating across four models (CTF framing: 8-14% on DeepSeek, GPT-5-mini, o4-mini). The agent does not override the rules; it reinterprets the task so that exploitative actions become task-aligned. GPT-4.1 produces no exploitation across 1,850 trials (37 conditions), and a temporal comparison across four OpenAI models released over eleven months shows a pattern consistent with improving safety training, though model capability differences are a confounder. The practical contribution is a narrowed, testable threat model: defenders should audit for goal-reframing language, not for the broad class of adversarial prompts.

Large language model email assistants are particularly vulnerable to indirect prompt injection because untrusted email content can be retrieved into the model context and influence subsequent tool use. Existing prompt injection detectors mainly formulate this problem as binary malicious text classification, which overlooks the important factor that harmful agent behavior often arises through a sequence of stages. We propose a detection framework that models this attack chain by combining a text detector, verifiers specific to each stage, explicit rule-based risk signals, user intent and action consistency analysis, and a logistic decision policy. To support this framework, we derive attack chain labels from prompt injection datasets, evaluate the proposed framework under random splits, temporal phase transfer, conditional stage transfer, cross-dataset transfer, and conduct ablation studies on multiple benchmarks. Results show that random train test splits substantially overestimate robustness under distribution shift, while later tool argument stages are more predictable than earlier stages in the framework. We also show that training on harmless emails that resemble attacks helps reduce false alarms while preserving the ability to detect real attacks. Across five binary benchmarks, our framework achieves a mean F1 score of 0.406 under the strict threshold setting policy, compared with 0.216 for the strongest of five pretrained detectors evaluated without additional training. These results highlight the value of combining attack stage predictions with checks for conflicts between the user's request and instructions in retrieved emails. Our experiments also demonstrate the importance of training with challenging benign examples to balance attack detection and false alarms.

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.