Long-term memory enables LLM agents to retain useful information across sessions, but also creates an attack surface through which adversaries may poison an agent's persistent memory to steer its behavior. Existing memory poisoning attacks mainly rely on individually malicious records, overlooking a compositional threat: multiple benign-looking memories may jointly induce unsafe behavior. In this paper, we introduce MemCollusion, an automated red-teaming framework for constructing collusive memory poisoning attacks. MemCollusion applies salami tactics---a strategy that slices an adversarial objective into small, individually innocuous pieces---to generate memory fragments that are individually benign looking but collectively harmful. It constructs memory coalitions using four design constraints, five theory-informed strategies, and a fine-tuned generator. To assess collusive memory poisoning in a realistic cross-session setting, we develop MoltLab, a controlled research reproduction of Moltbook, in which crafted platform content must first be observed and distilled into persistent memory before influencing the agent's behavior in a separate session. We evaluate MemCollusion on OpenClaw using two backbone models across 48 scenarios. Under the strongest memory-saving setting, MemCollusion achieves an average Memory Save Rate of 81.3% and an Attack Success Rate of 75.0%, and remains effective under both benign memory dilution and memory-level defenses.
Large language models are increasingly augmented with persistent memory, allowing assistants to store user-specific information across sessions for personalization and continuity. This statefulness introduces a new security risk: adversarial content can corrupt what an assistant remembers and thereby influence future interactions. We propose and study sleeper memory poisoning, a delayed attack in which an adversary manipulates external context, such as a document, webpage, or repository, to cause the assistant to store a fabricated memory about the user. Unlike conventional prompt injection, the attack can remain dormant and re-emerge across multiple later conversations. We evaluate the full attack pipeline: whether poisoned memories are written, later retrieved, and ultimately used to steer the following conversations. Across stateful LLM assistants, poisoned memories were added up to 99.8% on GPT-5.5 and 95% on Kimi-K2.6. Crucially, among successful retrievals, poisoned memories cause attacker-intended agentic actions in 60-89% of evaluations across models. These results show that persistent memory can act as a long-term attack surface across multiple future conversations.
Memory is a core component of AI agents, enabling them to accumulate knowledge across interactions and improve performance. However, persistent memory introduces the risk of memory poisoning, where a single adversarial memory write can exert long-term influence over agent behavior. We present a systematic study of memory poisoning in LLM-based agents. We identify four memory write channels and nine structural vulnerabilities in model capabilities, system prompt design, and agent system architecture that make these channels exploitable. Based on these vulnerabilities, we develop a taxonomy of six classes of memory poisoning attacks. Furthermore, we design MPBench -- a benchmark for evaluating memory poisoning attacks, and show that agents designed to write and retrieve memory more aggressively are more exploitable. We also show that existing prompt injection defenses fail to cover memory poisoning attacks. Our findings provide a foundation for understanding and mitigating memory poisoning attacks against AI agents.
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%.