PARSE: Provenance-Aware Retrieval Sanitization for Professional Domain LLM Agents

Domain-camouflaged injection attacks embed malicious instructions in retrieved content using domain-appropriate vocabulary, evading standard detectors that rely on syntactic injection markers. When detection fails, practitioners need to know which defense architectures reduce attack success. We evaluate five prompting-based defenses (spotlighting, paraphrasing, prompt sandwiching, and two combinations) against domain-camouflaged injection across three model families (Claude Haiku, Llama 3.1 8B, Gemini 2.0 Flash) and three deployment domains (financial, legal, general) using 3,510 trials. Paraphrasing retrieved content before agent processing is the most consistently effective defense in this benchmark, reducing camouflage attack success rate by 55-84% depending on model, and achieves lower attack success rates than our Llama Guard 4 configuration on every model tested. Defense effectiveness is strongly model-dependent: spotlighting halves attack success on Claude Haiku but provides no benefit on Llama 3.1 8B. Financial domain deployments face the highest residual risk at 26-33% baseline attack success rate, with no prompting-based defense fully eliminating the threat on weaker models. These results provide the first systematic evaluation of prompting-based defenses specifically against camouflage-class injection attacks and establish benchmark-based recommendations for practitioners. All tasks use synthetically constructed professional documents; whether these benchmark rankings generalize to real enterprise documents remains an open question.

We identify a security-fidelity tradeoff in defending LLMs against indirect prompt injection: defenses resist injected instructions largely by suppressing untrusted text, which corrupts tasks that must preserve it, such as translation and document editing. Attack-success metrics cannot see this, because a model that ignores an injection and one that faithfully processes it as data score identically. We introduce SecFid, a benchmark built so that executing an injection, processing it as data, and ignoring it produce distinguishable outputs. This makes fidelity measurable and exposes a frontier: across 1,168 examples and 48 configurations, no model or defense achieves both objectives. The highest-fidelity model reaches 96.5% fidelity at 47.8% security, while the most secure defenses invert this, at 99.3% security but only 71.0%-73.9% fidelity. Even defenses with identical security differ in how they earn it: some repair hijacks into faithful processing, others simply suppress benign content. A decision-theoretic analysis shows why no fixed choice can be right everywhere: the correct behavior is not a property of the defense but of the deployment, set by its relative cost of a hijack versus a dropped span. Security alone therefore measures only half of robustness, and reporting it without fidelity hides the price at which it was bought.

Production LLM applications stack several defense families -- refusal-phrase filters, token-budget controls, model allowlists, rate limits, tool-registry authentication -- yet existing breach-and-attack-simulation (BAS) benchmarks report a single aggregate coverage number, hiding which family closes which threat. We measure attribution. We add four OWASP-LLM-Top-10-aware agents to a 21-agent baseline scanner and target a lattice of four synthetic LLM endpoints: $L_0$ (no defenses), $L_1$ (refusal-only), $L_2$ (budget-only), and $L_3$ (full stack). $L_1$ and $L_2$ are sibling single-axis ablations, not subsets of each other; $L_3$ is their union plus tool-registry authentication and credential scrubbing. Across $N=10$ replications, the per-OWASP finding count is clean: refusal alone removes all LLM01 (jailbreak) and LLM07 (system-prompt leakage) findings; budget alone removes all LLM02 (sensitive-info disclosure) and LLM10 (unbounded consumption) findings by terminating multi-step sequences; LLM06 (excessive agency) requires the full stack. We probe brittleness under paraphrasing: with 300 Gemini-generated paraphrases ($K=5$ over a 60-template brittleness corpus), $L_1$ refusal block rate falls 15 pp on LLM01 and 25 pp on LLM07. A fifth target, $L_4$-real, swaps the stub backend for Gemini-2.5-flash behind the same $L_3$ regex and matches $L_1$ exactly, indicating no measurable alignment contribution beyond the regex (not a general claim about alignment). Budget controls show no drop (0 pp once the rate-limit floor is factored out). A refusal whitelist that clears a static benchmark can be defeated by an LLM-driven paraphraser without changing attack intent; a budget control resists the same mutation.