What Standard Evaluations Hide About Detectors of Hijacked LLM Agents: Rare Attacks, Unseen Tools and Benchmark Transfer

LLM agents increasingly screen tool outputs with small prompt-injection detectors, and teams choose among detectors by their scores on public benchmarks. We ask whether those scores predict how a detector behaves inside an agent. We replay the ground-truth tool calls of two agent benchmarks, AgentDojo and tau-bench, without an LLM to obtain tool outputs that are benign by construction, label injected outputs by differential replay, and evaluate fifteen detectors, including Meta's Prompt Guard 2, and two task-aware LLM judges on these outputs and on the BIPIA benchmark. Detection rankings transfer poorly between benchmarks: the best detector on BIPIA catches 2% of AgentDojo injections at a 1% false-positive rate, and a detector that catches 72% of AgentDojo injections catches 15% on tau-bench. False-positive rates on tool outputs, which range from none to over 90%, do transfer between the two agent benchmarks. Where training data is public, the form of the training inputs explains the results. The BIPIA leader was trained on full BIPIA inputs, but having seen InjecAgent's attack strings as short prompts does not help it find them inside tool outputs; the best detector on both agent benchmarks shares no data with any benchmark and was trained on agent-style inputs. Evaluations meant to inform deployment should use the agent's own tool outputs, report detection at a low false-positive rate, and audit what the detector was trained on.

LLM agents complete tasks by issuing sequences of tool calls, and every observation they read is a channel through which an indirect prompt injection can enter. A successful injection has a characteristic shape when the trajectory is read in order: a benign prefix gives way to actions that serve the attacker rather than the user. Existing benchmarks measure whether such attacks succeed against live agents, and existing guard models judge a trace as a whole; no public corpus labels, step by step, where an injection enters a trajectory and which steps it corrupts. We present AgentDrift, a benchmark of 12,536 synthetic tool-call trajectories over five agent domains in which every one of the 71,024 steps carries one of four labels: benign, injection point, hijacked, or failed injection. The corpus contains 4,000 benign, 5,536 attacked, 1,500 failed-attack, and 1,500 hard-negative trajectories; attacked trajectories follow three compliance patterns whose label strings obey a stated regular grammar. Failed attacks carry an injection the agent resisted, and hard negatives carry legitimate content that resembles an attack, so a detector must separate attempt from success and deviation from novelty. Trajectories were generated by a single open model under category-specific protocols, enforced by a closed-vocabulary structural validator, screened by an LLM judge, and audited by hand on 1,200 trajectories; we show that the LLM judge was itself fooled by the hard negatives. A surface-feature logistic regression recovers only 55.4% of attacks (F1 0.647), including only 8.2% of partial hijacks and 23.1% of delayed executions, so nearly half of the attacks require modeling the behavioral sequence. We measure template concentration, attack-goal-family collapse, and world-identity leakage in the generated data, and release the corpus with its documentation under CC BY 4.0.

Defenses against indirect prompt injection (IPI) in tool-using LLM agents share two structural weaknesses. First, they all attempt to prevent attacks rather than detect the compromises that slip through. Second, they have only been evaluated in English, leaving users of low-resource languages such as Kurdish and Arabic without tested protection. This paper addresses both gaps with AgentShield, a deception-based detection framework that places three layers of traps inside the agent's tool interface: fake tools, fake credentials, and allowlisted parameters. The same trap triggers serve as high-precision labels for a self-supervised classifier. An LLM agent that follows an attacker's hidden instruction almost always touches one of these traps, which gives both a real-time compromise signal and a zero-FP label for training a downstream detector without manual annotation. Across 176 cross-lingual attack prompts and four LLMs from three providers, and because modern LLMs already refuse most IPI attempts on their own (attack success rate <= 10%), AgentShield's job is to catch the attacks that do slip through. On commercial models, it catches 90.7%-100% of such successful attacks, with zero false alarms on 485 normal-use tests. It survives a systematic adaptive-attack evaluation with zero evasion on commercial models, and the self-supervised classifier transfers across models and languages without retraining.