Beyond Single-Model Injection: A Threat Model and Defense Architecture for Prompt Injection in Multi-Agent Systems
Organizations: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA · University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
Abstract
Existing prompt injection research focuses on single-model chatbot scenarios, where an attacker manipulates one LLM through crafted input. Multi-agent systems amplify this threat through three mechanisms absent from single-model settings: inter-agent message passing creates injection channels invisible to perimeter defenses, shared tool access enables privilege escalation across agent boundaries, and trust propagation allows a compromised agent to influence upstream orchestrators. We construct a threat model enumerating 14 attack vectors across four categories: direct injection via user input (3 vectors), indirect injection via tool outputs (4 vectors), inter-agent injection via message passing (4 vectors), and cascading injection through orchestrator manipulation (3 vectors). Testing all 14 vectors against a 6-agent production-representative system, we find that 67% of agents are vulnerable to at least one scope violation even with system-prompt-level guardrails, and indirect injection via tool outputs succeeds in 43% of attempts. Four architectural defenses reduce overall injection success from 31.2% to 4.2%: message signing with provenance tracking (inter-agent injection down 91%), input/output sanitization at agent boundaries (indirect injection down 78%), privilege-scoped tool access per agent role (privilege escalation eliminated entirely), and anomaly detection on inter-agent communication patterns (84% of cascading attempts caught).
Figures & tables
| ID | Vector | Target | Rate |
| Cat. 1: Direct injection (user input) | |||
| D1 | Instruction override | 22% | |
| D2 | Role impersonation | 18% | |
| D3 | Task hijacking | 16% | |
| Cat. 2: Indirect injection (tool outputs) | |||
| I1 | Document poisoning | 48% | |
| Defense | Cat. 1 | Cat. 2 | Cat. 3 | Cat. 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline (prompts) | 19% | 43% | 31% | 28% |
| + Msg. signing | 19% | 43% | 2.8% | 18% |
| + Sanitization | 8.4% | 9.5% | 31% | 22% |
| + Privilege scope | 19% | 34% | 31% | 16% |
| + Anomaly detect. | 14% | 38% | 24% | 4.5% |
| All combined | 3.8% | 4.6% | 1.2% | 3.4% |