Memory systems enable otherwise-stateless LLM agents to persist user information across sessions, but also introduce a new attack surface. We characterize the Trojan Hippo attack, a class of persistent memory attacks that operates in a more realistic threat model than prior memory poisoning work: the attacker plants a dormant payload into an agent's long-term memory via a single untrusted tool call (e.g., a crafted email), which activates only when the user later discusses sensitive topics such as finance, health, or identity, and exfiltrates high-value personal data to the attacker. While anecdotal demonstrations of such attacks have appeared against deployed systems, no prior work systematically evaluates them across heterogeneous memory architectures and defenses. We introduce a dynamic evaluation framework comprising two components: (1) an OpenEvolve-based adaptive red-teaming benchmark that stress-tests defenses and memory backends against continuously refined attacks, and (2) the first capability-aware security/utility analysis for persistent memory systems, enabling principled reasoning about defense deployment across different usage profiles. Instantiated on an email assistant across four memory backends (explicit tool memory, agentic memory, RAG, and sliding-window context), Trojan Hippo achieves up to 85-100% ASR against current frontier models from OpenAI and Google, with planted memories successfully activating even after 100 benign sessions. We evaluate four memory-system defenses inspired by basic security principles, finding they substantially reduce attack success rates (to as low as 0-5%), though at utility costs that vary widely with task requirements. Because of this substantial security-utility tradeoff, the effective real-world deployment of defenses remains an open challenge, which our evaluation framework is specifically designed to address.
Persistent external memory enhances agent continuity but introduces persistent security vulnerabilities: adversarial content can be injected via standard interaction channels, retained across turns, and later distort downstream behavior. To address this challenge, we propose MemPoison, a comprehensive benchmark and analysis framework featuring 1227 hand-validated cases across four attack types, three injection channels, and three representative memory substrates, evaluated on seven open-weight and three closed-weight model families. We introduce a three-tier taxonomy: (L1) direct single-record corruption, (L2) compositional multi-record corruption and (L3) context-triggered dormant corruption. Our evaluations reveal a distinct defense frontier: while baseline write-time defenses, such as consistency checks, substantially suppress direct L1 attacks, they fail to reliably suppress L2 and L3 attacks. Through mechanistic influence decomposition (MID), we demonstrate structural blind spots in write-time defenses, which admit seemingly benign records that later become harmful through joint retrieval composition or trigger-conditioned activation. Our findings advocate for shifting from static filtering to adaptive, context-sensitive memory defense strategies.
Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly leverage long term memory to support persistent and autonomous task execution. However, this capability also introduces a new attack surface: memory poisoning, where adversaries can inject malicious information to influence future behavior. Existing memory poisoning attacks often assume that injected content can be stored directly in memory, overlooking the selective extraction and rewriting stages in modern memory pipelines. This makes prior methods ineffective under realistic settings. In this paper, we propose MemPoison, a novel memory poisoning attack that bypasses selective memory mechanisms in LLM agents, where an attacker can inject triggerable backdoors into the agent's long-term memory through dialogue interactions, thereby misleading its subsequent responses. MemPoison introduces three key components: (i) a semantic relational bridge that binds the trigger and payload into a coherent statement to ensure they are extracted into memory together; (ii) entity masquerading that optimizes triggers to mimic named entities, resisting rewriting; and (iii) joint embedding optimization that shapes trigger-injected texts into a tight cluster in the embedding space while maintaining isolation from benign embeddings for stealth. Evaluations across different agent domains and memory mechanisms show MemPoison achieves attack success rates up to 0.95, outperforming existing baselines. Mechanistic analysis indicates that the attack exploits embedding-space anisotropy and shifts attention patterns, highlighting core vulnerabilities in selective memory systems. We evaluate multiple defense strategies and demonstrate their fundamental limitations in mitigating the attack.
Large language model agents increasingly rely on persistent memory to store past interactions, retrieve relevant demonstrations, and improve long-horizon task execution. However, this memory mechanism also creates a practical security vulnerability: an adversarial user may inject malicious records into the agent's memory through ordinary interaction, and these records can later be retrieved to steer the agent's reasoning and actions. Existing defenses primarily focus on online intervention, such as prompt filtering or output blocking, but they do not address the post-hoc question of which stored memories are responsible after harmful behavior has already been observed. We propose \textbf{MemAudit}, a post-hoc causal memory auditing framework for memory-augmented LLM agents. The framework combines two complementary signals: (1) a counterfactual memory influence score that measures each memory's causal contribution to harmful outputs, and (2) a memory consistency graph that identifies structurally anomalous memories within the broader memory store. We evaluate MemAudit against MINJA, a query-only memory injection attack in which malicious records are generated and stored through normal agent interactions rather than direct memory-bank modification. Across both QA and reasoning-agent settings, MemAudit substantially reduces attack success rates under realistic post-hoc auditing scenarios. The results show that QA attack success is reduced from 70% to 0%, while RAP attack success drops from 83.3% to 0%.