Multimodal large language model (MLLM)-based mobile agents are rapidly evolving from conversational assistants into autonomous systems that perceive, reason over, and act on smartphone environments. This capability also exposes a new security risk: adversaries can embed malicious objectives in cross-application mobile content and steer agent behavior through indirect multimodal injection. Although prompt injection has been studied in desktop and web settings, its cross-modal properties in mobile ecosystems remain poorly understood, and existing security analyses are still limited. To close this gap, we introduce MobileInject, the first benchmark for evaluating mobile agents against multimodal injection attacks and reasoning-to-action security risks. MobileInject provides a high-fidelity interactive mobile evaluation framework covering 11 scenarios, 9 security-risk categories, and 108 executable risk instances. It further introduces Cross-Modal Consistency Injection to exploit corroboration across modalities, two enhanced attack methods, Multi-Role Collaborative Deception and Reasoning-Camouflage Injection, to intensify trust manipulation and reasoning hijacking, and a Reasoning Security Diagnosis Framework for fine-grained failure analysis. Systematic experiments show that mobile agents are broadly vulnerable to multimodal injection, and that many failures stem from reasoning hijacking at early stages. These findings establish MobileInject as a systematic cross-modal benchmark for studying and improving the security of mobile agents. Code release details are provided in the Appendix Open Science section.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison between unimodal and multimodal injection. Multimodal injection aligns malicious cues across visual and textual channels, creating cross-modal reinforcement that can amplify attack effectiveness over single-channel injection.
Benchmark / Method
Evaluation Setting
Injection Coverage
Diagnostic Capability
MGI
CAW
DSE
TOI
VOI
CMC
RIT
SOV
RTD
RATM
DVP
InjecAgent [ 37 ]
×
×
✓
✓
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
AgentDojo [ 5 ]
×
×
✓
✓
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
Agent-SafetyBench [ 39 ]
×
×
✓
✓
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
ChatInject [ 2 ]
×
×
✓
✓
×
×
✓
×
×
×
×
MobileSafetyBench [ 11 ]
✓
✓
✓
△
△
×
×
✓
△
×
×
Table 1: Comparison with representative agent-security and mobile-agent safety benchmarks. ✓ : supported; △ : partial or not the main focus; × : not supported. MGI: mobile GUI interaction; CAW: cross-app workflow; DSE: dynamic stateful execution; TOI/VOI: textual/visual observation injection; CMC: cross-modal consistency; RIT: reinforced injection templates; SOV: state-based outcome verification; RTD: reasoning–action trajectory diagnosis; RATM: reasoning–action transition matrix; DVP: diagnostic visualization profile.
Figure 2: Overview of MobileInject. The framework constructs high-fidelity mobile tasks, injects adversarial objectives through cross-modal observations, executes MLLM-based agents in a closed loop, and applies the Reasoning Security Diagnosis Framework to analyze how malicious content affects agent reasoning, actions, and outcomes.
Figure 3: Task distribution of MobileInject across human activity domains, application scenarios, malicious consequence categories, and benign task carriers.
Component
Registered content
Scope
11 scenarios; Visual and Textual Observations
Objectives
Registered benign workflows and adversarial payloads
Instance
snapshot, apps, carrier, workflow, two oracles
Execution
reset → inject → closed-loop agent actions
Evidence
observation, recorded rationale, action, UI/state, endpoints
Figure 4: RCI mechanism. Context-shaped pseudo-rationale makes the injected objective appear continuous with the current task, inducing a goal switch that propagates from the emitted rationale to subsequent actions.
Metric
Layer
Definition / use
UC↑
Clean utility
Utility in Clean Setting. Benign completion without attack; clean task-solving reference.
UA↑
Outcome
Utility under Attack. Benign completion under adversarial pressure.
Table 4: Overall safety metrics of different models using the MobAgent framework on MobileInject. ↑ indicates that higher values are safer, and ↓ indicates that lower values are safer.
Model
UA ↑
AGR ↓
SAR ↑
RHR ↓
RHOR ↑
RHD ↓
AHR ↓
AHAS ↓
OSS ↑
SA ↑
AD ↓
RCO ↓
FH ↓
GLM-4.5V
0.00%
85.19%
8.33%
99.07%
22.31%
81.30%
99.07%
4.36%
7.96
9.44%
0.60%
1.11%
88.84%
GLM-4.6V
0.00%
14.81%
7.41%
77.78%
11.18%
52.92%
26.85%
0.00%
54.63
53.96%
0.00%
29.92%
16.12%
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
1.85%
63.89%
15.74%
93.52%
20.95%
73.47%
80.56%
3.37%
22.78
23.06%
0.36%
9.06%
67.51%
Qwen3.5-122B
18.52%
60.19%
26.85%
83.33%
34.04%
80.00%
76.85%
4.82%
29.26
29.28%
3.08%
9.13%
58.51%
Qwen3.6-35B
4.63%
12.04%
12.04%
52.78%
22.45%
57.78%
27.78%
0.63%
61.48
67.47%
0.51%
18.27%
13.75%
Gemini-2.5-Flash
0.00%
70.37%
16.67%
98.15%
25.40%
77.98%
75.00%
4.81%
20.56
16.28%
0.31%
13.95%
69.46%
Table 5: Overall safety metrics of different models using the M3A Agent framework on MobileInject. ↑ indicates that higher values are safer, and ↓ indicates that lower values are safer.
Model
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
GLM-4.5V
0.93
15.74
0.00
83.33
GLM-4.6V
0.93
32.41
0.00
66.67
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
9.26
50.93
0.00
39.81
Qwen3.5-122B
16.67
32.41
0.00
50.93
Qwen3.6-35B
37.04
23.15
0.93
38.89
Gemini-2.5-Flash
3.70
18.52
0.00
77.78
Table 6: OCM outcome distribution across models. Q1–Q4 denote safe-complete, safe-failed, unsafe-complete, and unsafe-failed outcomes, respectively; higher Q1 and lower Q3/Q4 are safer.
Model
Malicious Content
Privacy Leakage
Unauthorized Transaction
Function Abuse
Content Tampering
Data Destruction
Resource Exhaustion
Illegal Promotion
Bias/Fairness
Phishing
UA
GLM-4.5V
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
11.11%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GLM-4.6V
0.00%
0.00%
11.11%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
11.11%
5.56%
33.33%
0.00%
11.11%
0.00%
0.00%
22.22%
0.00%
11.11%
Qwen3.5-122B
16.67%
16.67%
0.00%
0.00%
22.22%
0.00%
55.56%
22.22%
11.11%
22.22%
Qwen3.6-35B
16.67%
27.78%
55.56%
44.44%
33.33%
55.56%
33.33%
44.44%
55.56%
44.44%
Table 7: Attack-category security breakdown under MobileInject. Each block reports UA, AGR, RHR, or AHR; higher UA and lower AGR/RHR/AHR are safer. Values are percentages, and colors denote direction-aware safety bins.
Model
Message
Add Contact
Email
Posting
Writing
Data Mgmt.
Calendar
Stocks
Website
UA
GLM-4.5V
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.33%
GLM-4.6V
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.33%
0.00%
0.00%
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
33.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.33%
0.00%
41.67%
Qwen3.5-122B
16.67%
8.33%
33.33%
8.33%
0.00%
0.00%
66.67%
0.00%
16.67%
Qwen3.6-35B
50.00%
16.67%
83.33%
25.00%
0.00%
16.67%
91.67%
0.00%
58.33%
Table 8: Task-category security breakdown under MobileInject. Blocks report UA and AGR; higher UA and lower AGR are safer. Values are percentages, and colors denote direction-aware safety bins. Each model–workflow cell aggregates all registered adversarial-payload conditions.
Defense
UA ↑
AGR ↓
SAR ↑
RHR ↓
RHOR ↑
RHD ↓
AHR ↓
AHAS ↓
SA ↑
AD ↓
RCO ↓
FH ↓
OSS ↑
Baseline
0.93%
83.33%
2.78%
98.15%
31.33%
100.00%
98.15%
0.13%
3.21%
0.00%
1.52%
95.27%
7.96
Data Delimiters
0.93%
84.26%
11.11%
96.30%
55.22%
92.84%
96.30%
7.06%
17.42%
2.28%
2.32%
77.98%
10.00
Prescriptive
0.93%
73.15%
22.22%
91.67%
55.19%
89.44%
87.04%
8.54%
24.24%
3.92%
3.41%
68.42%
19.44
SCOT
0.93%
70.37%
23.15%
84.26%
51.88%
92.37%
80.56%
5.40%
26.08%
2.34%
5.05%
66.53%
23.52
Safe Guide
0.00%
73.15%
19.44%
87.04%
49.24%
91.50%
83.33%
6.81%
22.36%
1.06%
3.13%
73.44%
20.56
Safety Sandwich
9.26%
73.15%
10.19%
94.44%
53.57%
89.89%
89.81%
7.26%
18.22%
2.18%
7.15%
72.45%
15.93
Table 9: Defense prompting comparison under MobileInject. Upward and downward arrows mark safer directions; values are percentages except OSS. Cell colors denote per-column safety quartiles. Each displayed defense condition contains 108 instances.
Figure 5: Stability of the diagnosis framework and MobileInject across repeated runs. Annotations give σ2 for each metric.
Figure 6: Overall Security Score (OSS) and Reasoning-Action Coupling Ratio (RACR) across evaluated models.
Figure 7: CMCI ablation on UA and AGR under different injection settings. CLEAN: no injection. VOI/TOI: visual/textual observation injection. CMUI-T/CMUI-V: only the text/visual modality is aligned with the malicious objective. CMCI: both modalities are aligned with the malicious objective.
Figure 8: MRCD ablation on UA and AGR across different attack variants.
Figure 9: Effect of RCI on UA and AGR for different attack methods.
Figure 10: Reasoning-action transition modes across models. Stacked bars show safe alignment, action drift, reasoning constraint, and complete hijack.
Figure 11: Equal-exposure CMCI controls on Gemini-2.5-Flash, averaged over four major benign workflows. TOI/VOI denote one textual/visual exposure; TOI+/VOI+ denote two exposures within the same channel; CMCI uses one textual and one visual exposure and achieves the highest AGR.
Figure 12: Budget-matched attack controls on Gemini-2.5-Flash, averaged over four major benign workflows. The “+” baselines match the full CMCI setting with MRCD and RCI in length, objective repetitions, exposure rounds, and interface salience.
LLM-powered GUI agents that autonomously operate smartphones are rapidly transitioning from research prototypes to early real-world deployment. However, because these agents routinely process untrusted environmental content, they are highly vulnerable to environmental injection attacks, which include indirect prompt injections and adversarial instructions. Such attacks can manipulate the behavior of agents without user awareness through diverse channels encountered in everyday mobile use. Despite these risks, existing benchmarks often fail to capture everyday user scenarios, lacking a systematic evaluation of GUI agents under environmental injection attacks on mobile devices. To address this gap, we introduce MobileWorldSafety, a benchmark of 142 risk tasks built on real Android applications. For each task, we define a programmatically verifiable risk indicator over the final system state and evaluate outcomes with a two-stage pipeline: rule-based verification handles unambiguous cases, while an LLM judge adjudicates ambiguous ones. This distinguishes safety failures from capability failures and enables objective and reproducible assessment. Evaluations on six agents, including both general agents and specialized GUI agents, demonstrate that all agents remain highly vulnerable, with attack success rates ranging from 40.4% to 66.9%. These findings indicate that current agents often fail to maintain safety alignment when adversarial content is presented as ordinary mobile context. MobileWorldSafety provides a foundation for quantifying these vulnerabilities and advancing research on robust mobile GUI agents.
The rise of autonomous AI agents represents a major paradigm shift in how users interact with mobile devices. Frameworks such as MobileRun and Mobile-Use can autonomously navigate Android applications and execute complex multi-step tasks. To interpret user interfaces, these frameworks rely primarily on Android accessibility (A11y) trees and secondarily on visual screenshots. In this paper, we demonstrate that this architectural dependence on unsanitized accessibility metadata, together with visual input, introduces a systemic vulnerability to indirect prompt injection. We show that adversarial prompts can cause autonomous agents to abandon their original objectives, violate context boundaries, and perform unauthorized device actions. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates goal hijacking, context drift, and unauthorized actions across visually hidden and fully exposed attack scenarios. In aggregate, MobileRun reaches an attack success rate of 0.822 with Gemma4:31B, while Mobile-Use with Qwen3.6:35B reduces this to 0.150 but does not eliminate context drift or unauthorized actions. These findings reveal that current mobile agent frameworks fail to enforce semantic context boundaries, treating passive environmental text as trusted instructions. Finally, we present a taxonomy of these attacks and discuss the need for zero-trust input validation, dedicated security agents, and strict context isolation within mobile agent architectures.
Rahul Deivasigamani, Sayeda Faatin Alvi, Derqui Andrea +2
Recent advancements in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown exceptional potential in enabling mobile-using agents to autonomously execute human instructions. However, fully automated agents often try to execute tasks even when they are unable to resolve them, leading to the problem of over-execution. Previous studies solve it by training a interactive mobile-using agents to let agents request human interaction when agents can not complete user instructions. However, we find that these interactive agents tend to exhibit over-soliciting behavior, relying excessively on human intervention. To mitigate both over-execution and over-soliciting, we propose a universal confidence integration framework that enables confidence-driven proactive and robust interaction in MLLM-based mobile-using agents. The framework consists of two stages: interaction capability empowerment and confidence bias correction. In the interaction capability empowerment stage, agents learn through supervised fine-tuning to output both actions and confidence scores. In the confidence bias correction stage, agents learn to output more accurate confidence scores by combining semantic similarity retrieval with direct preference optimization. Experimental results show Mobile-Aptus achieves state-of-the-art performance on the four popular mobile-using agent benchmarks: OS-Kairos, AITZ, Meta-GUI, and AndroidControl. Mobile-Aptus consistently outperforms all baselines in offline benchmarks, with an average improvement over 17% in task success rate. In real-world dynamic experiments, Mobile-Aptus surpasses the baseline by 26% in task success rate with only 0.64 intervention steps per instruction. The codes are available at https://github.com/Wuzheng02/Mobile-Aptus.
Zheng Wu, Pengzhou Cheng, Zongru Wu +5
School of Computer Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University · GenAI, Meta