Abstract
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.
Explore similar work
May 21, 2026cs.CR
Injection detectors deployed to protect LLM agents are calibrated on static, template-based payloads that announce themselves as override directives. We identify a systematic blind spot: when payloads are generated to mimic the domain vocabulary and authority structures of the target document, what we call domain camouflaged injection, standard detectors fail to flag them, with detection rates dropping from 93.8% to 9.7% on Llama 3.1 8B and from 100% to 55.6% on Gemini 2.0 Flash. We formalize this as the Camouflage Detection Gap (CDG), the difference in injection detection rate between static and camouflaged payloads. Across 45 tasks spanning three domains and two model families, CDG is large and statistically significant (chi^2 = 38.03, p < 0.001 for Llama; chi^2 = 17.05, p < 0.001 for Gemini), with zero reverse discordant pairs in either case. We additionally evaluate Llama Guard 3, a production safety classifier, which detects zero camouflage payloads (IDRcamouflage = 0.000), confirming that the blind spot extends beyond few-shot detectors to dedicated safety classifiers. We further show that multi-agent debate architectures amplify static injection attacks by up to 9.9x on smaller models, while stronger models show collective resistance. Targeted detector augmentation provides only partial remediation (10.2% improvement on Llama, 78.7% on Gemini), suggesting the vulnerability is architectural rather than incidental for weaker models. Our framework, task bank, and payload generator are released publicly.
Aaditya Pai
Apr 20, 2026cs.CR
Current open-source prompt-injection detectors converge on two architectural choices: regular-expression pattern matching and fine-tuned transformer classifiers. Both share failure modes that recent work has made concrete. Regular expressions miss paraphrased attacks. Fine-tuned classifiers are vulnerable to adaptive adversaries: a 2025 NAACL Findings study reported that eight published indirect-injection defenses were bypassed with greater than fifty percent attack success rates under adaptive attacks. This work proposes seven detection techniques that each port a specific mechanism from a discipline outside large-language-model security: forensic linguistics, materials-science fatigue analysis, deception technology from network security, local-sequence alignment from bioinformatics, mechanism design from economics, spectral signal analysis from epidemiology, and taint tracking from compiler theory. Three of the seven techniques are implemented in the prompt-shield v0.4.1 release (Apache 2.0) and evaluated in a four-configuration ablation across six datasets including deepset/prompt-injections, NotInject, LLMail-Inject, AgentHarm, and AgentDojo. The local-alignment detector lifts F1 on deepset from 0.033 to 0.378 with zero additional false positives. The stylometric detector adds 11.1 percentage points of F1 on an indirect-injection benchmark. The fatigue tracker is validated via a probing-campaign integration test. All code, data, and reproduction scripts are released under Apache 2.0.
Thamilvendhan Munirathinam
Aug 8, 2026cs.CR
Prompt injection is a critical security threat in large language model (LLM) applications, where attackers hijack model behavior by embedding malicious instructions in user or external data. Existing detection methods only detect the presence of injection and refuse to respond upon detection, overlooking the fact that for many modern aligned models, well-crafted instructions can resist most injection attacks. This means that the injection robustness varies significantly across instructions and models. This leads to widespread unnecessary over-refusal: inputs containing injections that the model could have handled correctly are rejected incorrectly. To deal with this over-refusal issue, we propose BASIS (Robustness-Aware Prompt Injection Defense). This defense method uses the Attention Competition Ratio (
ρ) as features to train two sparse linear probes: an existence probe and a breach probe. Both probes make defense decisions through cascaded gating, which does not require additional LLM inference. BASIS comprises three stages: injection existence detection, per-sample breach prediction, and instruction robustness assessment; the online cascade refuses only when the model would actually be compromised and thus avoids over-refusal on robust instructions. Experiments across four tasks and six open-source LLMs show that BASIS maintains near-perfect injection detection while substantially reducing over-refusal on safe attack samples, especially under robust instruction templates.
Laiqiao Qin, Tianqing Zhu, Longxiang Gao +1