Organizations: School of Software, Henan University, China · Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, China · Peking University, China
With the widespread application of LLM-based agents across various domains, their complexity has introduced new security threats. Existing red-team methods mostly rely on modifying user prompts, which lack adaptability to new data and may impact the agent's performance. To address the challenge, this paper proposes the JailAgent framework, which completely avoids modifying the user prompt. Specifically, it implicitly manipulates the agent's reasoning trajectory and memory retrieval with three key stages: Trigger Extraction, Reasoning Hijacking, and Constraint Tightening. Through precise trigger identification, real-time adaptive mechanisms, and an optimized objective function, JailAgent demonstrates outstanding performance in cross-model and cross-scenario environments.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The overall architecture of JailAgent demonstrates the complete process of the jailbreak.
Agent Backbone
Method
ReAct-UALA
StrategyQA
MMLU
HotpotQA
ALL
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
EM.
CR.
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
EM.
CR.
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
EM.
CR.
GPT-3.5-turbo
Non-attack
-
-
-
68.56
85.59
-
-
-
62.28
82.81
-
-
-
32.00
84.40
-
PAIR
54.59
48.47
42.79
59.39
74.24
42.81
40.70
38.95
49.30
67.89
22.40
19.80
19.20
28.40
73.20
43.434
AgentPoison
65.50
56.77
55.90
65.94
77.73
56.49
52.63
52.81
58.95
77.89
30.20
27.40
27.20
29.40
80.60
52.564
BadChain
49.34
44.10
43.67
50.66
70.74
50.35
48.60
48.07
52.63
77.19
30.60
27.80
26.60
29.60
81.40
48.498
Table 1: Experimental results of different jailbreak methods on ReAct-UALA built upon various LLM cores. “ALL” denotes the weighted average of the five metrics across the three datasets.
Agent Backbone
Method
EHRAgent
MIMIC-III
eICU
TREQS
ALL
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
SR.
CR.
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
SR.
CR.
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
SR.
CR.
GPT-3.5-turbo
Non-attack
-
-
-
46.72
56.90
-
-
-
44.48
61.72
-
-
-
49.90
60.63
-
PAIR
42.24
37.07
36.55
35.86
39.31
67.93
65.00
62.41
34.48
49.48
58.18
54.60
51.23
40.59
51.33
48.933
AgentPoison
58.79
51.38
49.48
38.28
42.41
84.14
78.97
78.45
42.07
56.21
60.53
55.93
56.13
43.15
53.78
56.136
BadChain
61.03
54.31
51.21
39.83
43.97
83.62
77.59
77.93
40.86
53.28
61.76
59.00
53.80
44.58
54.81
56.729
Table 2: Experimental results of different jailbreak methods on EHRAgent built upon various LLM cores.
Agent Backbone
Method
ReAct-UALA
EHRAgent
VideoAgent
StrategyQA
MIMIC-III
EgoSchema
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
EM.
CR.
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
EM.
CR.
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
EM.
CR.
GPT-4o
JailAgent
73.80
65.07
62.88
80.35
90.39
65.17
59.48
56.21
55.52
83.62
48.40
46.60
45.20
59.60
94.00
w/o ΔL
58.08
54.15
50.66
79.91
88.21
58.45
55.34
51.55
52.07
80.86
41.20
38.60
37.40
59.20
90.80
w/o DKL
62.01
57.21
55.90
80.79
89.52
58.97
55.86
52.76
53.62
81.21
41.80
40.60
39.20
56.20
93.80
w/o Lpar
64.63
61.14
59.83
78.60
87.77
60.34
56.90
54.14
53.79
82.24
44.80
42.40
42.60
60.20
94.60
Table 3: Ablation results under different experimental settings across agents and datasets.
Method Modules
Remova Ratio
ReAct-UALA
EHRAgent
VideoAgent
StrategyQA
MIMIC-III
EgoSchema
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
EM.
CR.
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
EM.
CR.
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
EM.
CR.
JailAgent
Full
73.80
65.07
62.88
80.35
90.39
65.17
59.48
56.21
55.52
83.62
48.40
46.60
45.20
59.60
94.00
Candidate
w/o 20%
72.49
63.32
61.14
78.60
89.08
64.14
57.24
55.69
54.66
82.24
46.80
45.60
41.60
57.40
92.80
w/o 40%
73.36
62.01
59.83
78.17
89.52
64.66
56.55
53.45
53.97
82.07
47.20
44.40
40.60
59.80
94.00
w/o 60%
72.93
60.26
56.77
76.86
88.65
63.79
54.31
51.72
53.28
81.03
46.20
43.20
39.60
56.80
91.20
Table 4: Performance impact of progressive component removal (20%–80%) across agents and datasets.
Figure 2: Comparison of ASR Success Cases between JailAgent and AgentPoison on VideoAgent, where option 0 is the correct answer to the question, and bold text represents the model’s reasoning process.
Method
ReAct-UALA
EHRAgent
VideoAgent
StrategyQA
MIMIC-III
EgoSchema
PAIR
342.20
384.56
262.24
AgentPoison
92.38
103.28
59.47
BadChain
74.62
89.83
43.64
JailAgent
52.29
63.45
34.86
Table 5: TCPS time consumption (s) of jailbreak methods across agent architectures and datasets.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: An illustration of the JailAgent red-teaming workflow, together with example architectures and functionalities of the three agents. The figure also presents representative input–output cases for each agent, the key techniques adopted in the red-team process, and the overall evaluation framework.
Module
Hyperparameter
Value
Description
Trigger Extraction
top_k_groups
2
Number of top contributing groups
top_k_trigger
4
Tokens selected per group
alpha
0.5
Coefficient for coarse-to-fine
beta
0.5
Coefficient for coarse-to-fine
Synthetic Data
num_contexts
30
Contexts generated per anchor
positives_per_context
4
Positive pairs per context
Appendix
Table 6: Hyperparameter configuration used across all modules in JailAgent framework.
Agent
Dataset
Examples
Tokens
Words
VideoAgent
EgoSchema
500
151.08 ±88.23
130.57 ±77.49
NExT-QA
570
26.09 ±7.441
25.58 ±7.306
ReAct-UALA
HotpotQA
500
20.03 ±6.863
15.42 ±5.499
StrategyQA
229
19.98 ±6.655
15.93 ±5.067
MMLU
570
86.88 ±81.73
64.28 ±66.39
EHRAgent
MIMIC-III
580
126.47 ±75.68
61.92 ±34.21
Appendix
Table 7: Summary statistics of the evaluation datasets.
Agent Backbone
Method
VideoAgent
EgoSchema
NExT-QA
ALL
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
ACC
CR.
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
ACC
CR.
GPT-3.5-turbo
Non-attack
-
-
-
57.80
95.80
-
-
-
58.60
97.37
-
PAIR
38.40
35.40
34.20
46.20
88.60
41.40
38.95
37.02
42.28
87.54
49.186
AgentPoison
43.40
40.40
40.60
52.60
93.00
50.35
46.84
46.32
56.14
94.56
57.454
BadChain
44.20
41.60
40.80
52.80
93.80
55.96
53.51
50.88
50.53
93.33
59.064
Appendix
Table 8: Experimental results of different jailbreak methods on VideoAgent built upon various LLM cores.
Figure 4: We demonstrate the effectiveness of the Joint Optimization module in optimizing the trigger. From left to right, the first image shows the case without Joint Optimization, the middle two images show the application of Lpar(E)+Lclu(E) and Lsep(E)+Lmar(E) , and the final image illustrates the complete Joint Optimization.
Safeguards
ReAct-UALA (StrategyQA)
EHRAgent (MIMIC-III)
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
ASR-R
ASR-L
ASR-H
JailAgent
54.59
51.52
48.91
63.97
61.21
58.97
+PPL Filter
54.15
52.40
48.47
63.97
60.34
58.28
+RA-LLM
52.40
50.22
45.41
62.76
58.45
55.34
BadChain
49.78
46.72
44.54
62.41
57.07
56.21
+RA-LLM
44.54
42.36
38.43
58.79
55.86
51.72
Appendix
Table 9: Robustness evaluation under different defense mechanisms.
Modern LLM agents solve complex tasks by operating in iterative execution loops, where they repeatedly reason, act, and self-evaluate progress to determine when a task is complete. In this work, we show that while this self-directed loop facilitates autonomy, it also introduces a critical risk: by injecting malicious prompts into the agent's context, an adversary can distort the agent's termination judgment, making it believe the task remains incomplete and leading to unbounded computation.To understand this threat, we define and systematically characterize it as Termination Poisoning and design 10 representative attack strategies. Through a empirical study spanning 8 LLM agents and 60 tasks, we demonstrate that different LLM agents exhibit distinct behavioral signatures that determine which strategies succeed. These transferable patterns can serve as principled guidance for crafting effective attacks against previously unseen agents and tasks, enabling scalable red-teaming beyond manually designed templates. Building on these insights, we introduce LoopTrap, an automated red-teaming framework that synthesizes target-specific malicious prompts by exploiting agent behavioral tendencies. LoopTrap first constructs a behavioral profile of the target agent along four vulnerability dimensions via lightweight probing. It then performs adaptive trap synthesis, routing to the most effective strategy and selecting optimal injections via a self-scoring mechanism. Finally, successful traps are abstracted into a reusable skill library, while failed attempts are refined through self-reflection, ensuring continuous improvement. Extensive evaluation shows that LoopTrap achieves an average of 3.57× step amplification across 8 mainstream agents, with a peak of 25×.
Huiyu Xu, Zhibo Wang, Wenhui Zhang +4
The State Key Laboratory of Blockchain and Data Security Zhejiang University Hangzhou, Zhejiang, P. R. China · School of Cyber Science and Engineering Southeast University Nanjing, Jiangsu, P. R. China
While Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used, they remain susceptible to jailbreak prompts that can elicit harmful or inappropriate responses. This paper introduces STAR-Teaming, a novel black-box framework for automated red teaming that effectively generates such prompts. STAR-Teaming integrates a Multi-Agent System (MAS) with a Strategy-Response Multiplex Network and employs network-driven optimization to sample effective attack strategies. This network-based approach recasts the intractable high-dimensional embedding space into a tractable structure, yielding two key advantages: it enhances the interpretability of the LLM's strategic vulnerabilities, and it streamlines the search for effective strategies by organizing the search space into semantic communities, thereby preventing redundant exploration. Empirical results demonstrate that STAR-Teaming significantly surpasses existing methods, achieving a higher attack success rate (ASR) at a lower computational cost. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness and explainability of the Multiplex Network. The code is available at https://github.com/selectstar-ai/STAR-Teaming-paper.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving into agentic systems that interact with external tools and environments, introducing new security risks such as indirect prompt injection attacks through untrusted external sources. Existing defenses mainly focus on blocking malicious content at inference time, and current red-teaming methods primarily optimize attack success. As a result, developers have limited visibility into how latent prompt injections emerge and propagate through agents. We propose PI-Hunter, an automated agentic auditing framework for proactive vulnerability exposure in LLM agents. PI-Hunter constructs realistic source-aware test cases and iteratively evolves them through feedback-driven exploration to induce agents to retrieve and reveal latent malicious instructions embedded within external environments. Extensive experiments across multiple benchmarks, agent architectures, attacks, and defenses demonstrate that PI-Hunter substantially improves vulnerability exposure and attack-surface coverage over strong automated red-teaming baselines, while remaining effective under existing prompt injection defenses.
Pengfei He, Lesly Miculicich, Vishesh Sharma +5
Google Cloud AI Research · Google · Michigan State University