Prompt Injection Attacks on AI Agents

Tool-using large language model (LLM) agents are attractive for network operations, but tickets, alerts, logs, runbooks, and ChatOps messages can carry indirect prompt injections. We present NetInjectBench, a 130-scenario benchmark that separates untrusted artifact text, trusted policy metadata, and evaluation labels for network-operation tool use. The sample contains 40 benign, 40 weak-attack, 40 strong-attack, and 10 approved high-impact change scenarios; each is evaluated with Qwen2.5-7B, Llama3.1-8B, and Mistral-7B. Across 240 attack instances, naive execution reached an 82.50% unsafe tool-action rate. Prompt-only safety, Self-Reminder, Spotlighting, and a Two-Pass LLM Judge reduced this rate to 25.63%, 21.67%, 18.33%, and 10.00%, respectively. Static allowlisting reached 5.00% but blocked all approved changes, yielding 0.00% usefulness and 100.00% overblocking on approved cases. Under the stated metadata-integrity assumption, the metadata-aware policy gate produced 0/240 unsafe attack actions, with a 95% Wilson upper bound of 1.58%, while preserving 99.17% attack-scenario usefulness and 100.00% approved-change usefulness. The findings show that network-operation agents need execution-time authorization boundaries alongside prompt-level instruction hygiene.

AI agents act on behalf of user prompts, consuming external data and taking actions based on the agent context. Prior research on AI agent security has primarily focused on indirect prompt injection (IPI). Its most well-studied category is instruction injection, where attacker-controlled untrusted data is interpreted as an instruction. In response, many mitigations have been proposed to prevent instruction injection attacks. In this paper, we introduce a new category of IPI, agent data injection attacks (ADI). ADI injects malicious data disguised as trusted data, such as security-critical metadata (e.g., resource identifiers or data origins) or agent context data (e.g., tool call and response formats). As a result, agents unknowingly execute unintended actions based on attacker-controlled data. ADI has similar attack impacts as instruction injection attacks, because it causes agents to misbehave and execute unintended actions. Despite the similar impact, ADI remains underexplored and easily bypasses existing IPI defenses. We found several critical vulnerabilities in real-world agents that allow an attacker to launch various attacks: arbitrary click attacks on web agents (Claude in Chrome, Antigravity, and Nanobrowser), and remote code execution and supply-chain attacks on coding agents (Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLI). We evaluate ADI vulnerabilities across off-the-shelf models and AI agents, and find that ADI is effective in both standalone LLMs and AI agent settings. ADI exposes a critical gap in agent security, signifying that current AI agents do not employ a fundamental security principle: current agents do not isolate trusted data from untrusted data.

Personal AI agents that run on the user's local machine automate daily tasks including web search, email, and file management. Their access to computer resources, including the network, file system, and shell, exposes them to indirect prompt injection (IPI) attacks. Prior Dual LLM defenses block IPI by replacing untrusted data with symbols that the agent can reference but not read. However, they track untrusted data only inside the agent's context, so when the agent saves and later rereads untrusted data, that data, possibly an attacker's prompt, can return as trusted data rather than as a symbol, which we call stored IPI. Operating on the user's real environment is what makes agents like OpenClaw practical, and is exactly why a defense that ignores it is incomplete. Preserving symbols in such an environment is hard, because humans and programs need original data. We present DualView, which extends untrusted data tracking from the agent's context to the user's environment, including the file system, shell, network, and other agents, by giving each channel two views. In AgentView, the agent sees untrusted data as symbols even after writing it out and reading it back, blocking stored IPI, while HumanView preserves original data for humans and tools. DualView routes each tool call to the right view and synchronizes data across the two views. DualView deploys as an OpenClaw plugin using only tool hooks, without changing the agent's tool-call logic or tool implementations. DualView deterministically prevents instructions in untrusted data from directly steering the agent's tool calls; this guarantee does not depend on recognizing the evaluated attack templates. In our evaluation on an IPI benchmark and PinchBench, DualView blocked every tested IPI attack, including stored IPI. On PinchBench, its utility drop was within 1.8 to 6.4 points.

We present RIPA, the first systematic multi-channel empirical study of prompt injection attacks delivered through the sensory pipeline of a ROS 2-based LLM-controlled robotic system. Across 100 independent runs per injection variant on five LLMs spanning four model families and parameter scales from approximately 4B to approximately 284B (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, Llama-3-8B-Instruct-Lite, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct-Turbo, Qwen 2.5-7B-Instruct-Turbo, Gemma-3n-E4B), we identify model-specific vulnerability profiles that do not follow a monotonic scaling trend: Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct-Turbo exhibits 100% attack success rate (ASR) across all injection variants, while Llama-3-8B-Instruct-Lite and Qwen 2.5-7B-Instruct-Turbo resist direct-override injection (0% ASR), and the smallest model evaluated (Gemma-3n-E4B, approximately 4B) matches the 70B model's vulnerability profile, indicating that robustness is model-specific rather than scale-dependent. We propose a hybrid semantic firewall that achieves 0% ASR against known injection patterns with no false positives on a preliminary benign set (0/20 commands) but exhibits a 10.2% trial-weighted bypass rate (58/570 trials; N equals 30 per payload across 19 obfuscation payloads) against adversarially obfuscated attacks, exposing a critical gap between rule-based and semantic defense layers. We further introduce three sensory injection channels: visual (Channel 1, via OCR), audio (Channel 2, via Whisper STT), and LiDAR sensor context poisoning (Channel 3). We show that Channel 3, which injects fabricated obstacle data into the robot environment-state representation at the LLM system-prompt level, achieves 100% ASR across all variants on DeepSeek-V4-Flash. We also contribute a firewall bypass taxonomy spanning 19 obfuscation payloads across five categories. All code, data, and results are publicly available.

Recent work (2024 to 2026) has converged on a strategy for defending tool-using LLM agents against indirect prompt injection: rather than training the model to refuse malicious instructions, enforce security outside the model with a deterministic policy that mediates the agent's actions. Systems such as CaMeL, FIDES, Progent, RTBAS, and FORGE realize this with capabilities, information-flow labels, and reference monitors, and several report near-elimination of attacks on the AgentDojo benchmark. We make two contributions. First, we organize these out-of-band defenses as instances of classical integrity protection (Biba), reference monitoring, and least privilege, yielding a structured comparison of what they do and do not cover. Second, we warn that every one of them is validated only on static benchmarks (a fixed set of injection attempts), the same methodology that made in-band defenses look strong until adaptive, defense-aware attacks broke twelve of them at over 90% success; we specify the threat model and protocol an adaptive evaluation requires. We then run that protocol as an independent reproduction and extension of Progent's own adaptive-attack analysis, on AgentDojo, with an open-weight agent (Qwen2.5-7B) self-hosted on a single H200, a setting its authors did not test. Averaged over three runs, the defense held: Progent cut mean attack success roughly sixfold (25.8% to 4.2%), and a hand-crafted adaptive attack did not raise it (2.6%). This is one small-scale data point on a weak model with a single black-box attack template; a stronger optimized (white-box GCG) attack remains open. The result is consistent with, but does not establish, the hypothesis that deterministic out-of-band enforcement is a harder target for an adaptive attacker than in-band detection.

Hidden-state probing -- a linear classifier on a frozen vision-language model's internal activations -- has emerged as an attractive evaluation tool for flagging indirect prompt injection (IPI) in multimodal computer-use agents before the agent emits a corrupted action. We argue, on a single-backbone cautionary case study (Qwen2.5-VL-7B on Mind2Web, teacher-forced replay), that a high probing AUC on a clean-vs-attack split is not, on its own, evidence of malicious-content detection. Two post-hoc diagnostics -- a paired-construction scalar baseline on text-side injections, and same-step nuisance-matched visual controls on the overlay surface -- do not license an unqualified malicious-content interpretation of the headline while leaving room for partly-semantic readings. We package the diagnostics as a candidate control set with reporting heuristics for what a high clean-vs-attack AUC does and does not license. Labels are injection-surface-present, not attack success; generalisation beyond this backbone and benchmark is a conjecture.

Agentic AI systems increasingly rely on language-model components to interpret instructions, process external data, invoke tools, and coordinate with other agents. These capabilities make prompt-injection and jailbreak attacks more consequential, especially as attackers adopt model-guided automation to scale probing, prompt refinement, and response evaluation. This work analyzes the resulting attack-defense setting through a probabilistic model of a target system, its defense mechanism, and the attacker's automated judge. Our analysis shows that conventional detect-and-block defenses can allow attacker success rate (ASR) to approach one as the query budget grows, since predictable refusals provide useful feedback to automated search. We then examine detect-and-misdirect, where detected malicious interactions receive controlled, non-operational responses designed to induce false-positive errors in the attacker's judge. This strategy reduces the positive predictive value of attacker-selected candidates and yields a bounded asymptotic ASR. We evaluate a proof-of-concept realization of this strategy through Contextual Misdirection via Progressive Engagement (CMPE), a lightweight conversational misdirection method designed to replace predictable refusal text with safe but strategically misleading responses in automated jailbreak settings. On jailbreak benchmarks, CMPE reduces estimated ASR upper bounds by up to two orders of magnitude and nearly eliminates verified attack success in end-to-end experiments with PAIR, GPTFuzz, and AutoDAN-Turbo.

Prompt injection is ranked as the most critical vulnerability in large language model (LLM) deployments by the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications, yet existing defenses operate at isolated pipeline stages and remain incomplete. Input filters cannot inspect retrieved documents, while output monitors cannot prevent malicious payloads from reaching the model. Consequently, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) chatbots remain vulnerable to indirect injection, where a poisoned knowledge-base document compromises every user whose query retrieves it. We present a three-layer framework that intercepts both direct and indirect prompt injection throughout the inference pipeline. Layer 1 screens user input using a rule-based pattern library and a fine-tuned semantic anomaly classifier. Layer 2 enforces a provenance-based instruction hierarchy during context assembly, preventing retrieved content from overriding operator policy. Layer 3 audits model output using a policy rule engine and semantic drift detector before delivery. A continuous audit loop aggregates structured logs and supports retraining to adapt the classifier to emerging attack patterns. The framework is model-agnostic and deploys as middleware without modifying the underlying LLM. Evaluation on 5,080 samples across GPT-4o, Llama 3, and Mistral 7B shows that the framework reduces Attack Success Rate (ASR) from 71.4% to 11.3%, outperforming the best single-layer baseline by 27.3 percentage points and a published guardrail system by 23.8 percentage points, while maintaining a 4.8% false positive rate and a median latency overhead of 61.2 ms. Ablation studies confirm that all three layers provide complementary protection and that their combined effect exceeds the sum of individual contributions.

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.

Tool-using language-model agents introduce security failures that go beyond unsafe text: they can disclose protected objects, write persistent memory, send messages, modify databases, or trigger harmful code and tool effects. Existing evaluations often collapse these stages into a single attack success rate, making it difficult to tell whether a model merely agreed with an attacker or actually produced observable harm. We introduce SafeClawBench, a staged benchmark for tool-using agent security with 600 controlled adversarial tasks across six attack families: direct and indirect prompt injection, tool-return injection, memory poisoning, memory extraction, and ambiguity-driven unsafe inference. SafeClawBench reports three separate endpoints: semantic attack acceptance, audit-visible harm evidence, and sandbox-observed tool/state harm. Evaluating five agent endpoints under four prompt-level policies, we find that these endpoints capture different failure modes. Without additional prompt protection, semantic failure rates vary widely across models, from 9.0% to 44.2%. Audited harm evidence is narrower than semantic failure, and under a separate executable protocol some matched task identities produce sandbox harm despite passing the Semantic Core call: in a 12,000-row matched analysis, 291 of 347 observed sandbox harms occur in rows that pass the semantic check. Prompt policies change endpoint outcomes, but their effects depend on both model and protocol. SafeClawBench provides a reproducible framework for comparing agent models and prompt-policy conditions without conflating textual compliance, evidence-supported harm, and executable state changes. The open-source dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/sairights/safeclawbench.

Prompt injection defenses evaluated on synthetic benchmarks do not generalize to real enterprise documents, which are longer, denser, and interleave legitimate authority language with factual content. We demonstrate this gap with a real-document benchmark of 122 tasks across five professional domains (financial, legal, medical, scientific, DevOps) using actual SEC filings, Federal Register rules, PubMed abstracts, arXiv papers, and GitHub postmortems. Paraphrasing, the strongest defense on synthetic benchmarks, shows no statistically significant attack success rate reduction on real documents (p=0.500) while degrading utility from 91.8% to 82.8%. We introduce PARSE (Provenance-Aware Retrieval Sanitization), a domain-aware, fact-preserving sanitization pipeline that classifies each sentence by injection likelihood, extracts structured facts before rewriting, and verifies fact preservation via a consistency-checking loop. A directiveness gate routes 59% of real enterprise documents to a lightweight path, concentrating computational cost on high-risk documents. PARSE achieves 15.6% attack success rate -- a 38% reduction versus the 25.4% baseline -- at 86.9% utility, the only condition that is both statistically significant (p=0.014, adequately powered) and maintains near-baseline utility. Practitioners should evaluate defenses on domain-matched real documents, not synthetic proxies.

Indirect prompt injection attacks hijack LLM-based agents by embedding malicious instructions in third-party data that the agent retrieves during task execution. Existing defenses report near-zero attack success rate on static benchmarks, yet recent adaptive evaluations show that these results collapse once the attacker is allowed to optimize against the deployed defense. In this work, we trace this collapse to two failure modes. First, existing defense methods are confined to recognizing specific attack patterns, rather than assessing whether the intent of every embedded instruction is relevant to the user task. Second, training-based defenses, which otherwise offer the strongest safety-utility trade-off, assemble their adversarial examples from a handful of hand-crafted templates, and the resulting defender fails to generalize outside that narrow strategy distribution. To address these gaps, we propose RETA, a training-based method that grounds defense decisions on the user tasks rather than attacker-controlled data. At each tool-output step, the defender undertakes chain-of-thought reasoning verifying that its actions are consistent with the user task. Leveraging red-teaming, a simulated attacker synthesizes adversarial training data and receives a dictionary-learning diversity reward, achieving broad coverage of injection-reformulation strategies. Together, these allow the defender to be optimized via multi-objective reinforcement learning and achieve better safety-utility trade-off. Across six black-box adaptive attacks, RETA keeps every per-attack ASR below 10%, with average ASR of 2.92% and 3.75% on the two target models, while preserving most utility under attack and on clean inputs.

Indirect prompt injection (IPI) is a major security threat to LLM-powered agents. Thus, a growing body of work has proposed a variety of defensive approaches against IPI which can be grouped into three broad categories: prompt-level, filter-based, and system-level designs. However, commonly used benchmarks for evaluating defense, such as AgentDojo, are \emph{inherently static}, generating a fixed distribution of IPI attacks. Consequently, a defense can score well on them without being robust to adaptive threats. We introduce \textbf{AutoDojo}, a generative benchmark built on AgentDojo and AgentDyn that generates IPI \emph{adaptively} for a given agent and defense. It supports six task suites across the two benchmarks, covering banking, communication, travel, shopping, coding, and everyday-assistant domains. AutoDojo optimizes injections under a strict black-box setting, observing only whether a candidate injection succeeds, and can readily integrate, and often improve on, any existing black-box attack. Across ten defenses and five target models, AutoDojo demonstrates that standard static benchmarks often significantly overestimate defense efficacy. Moreover, we show that most existing defenses either sacrifice considerable utility or are insecure. Finally, we demonstrate that attack success interacts with task specification, with under-specified tasks particularly vulnerable. AutoDojo is available at https://github.com/xhOwenMa/AutoDojo

Web agents driven by large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world environments, where they operate over untrusted web content and execute actions with direct consequences. This makes them vulnerable to prompt-injection attacks, in which seemingly benign content embeds adversarial instructions that manipulate agent behaviour. Existing security benchmarks adopt an \textit{attack-centric} perspective, focusing on the technical feasibility of injections while overlooking the nuanced distribution of resulting harms. In practice, however, prompt-injection risk is victim-dependent: a single exploit can produce asymmetric consequences for different stakeholders, and the same attack pattern may exhibit substantially different effectiveness depending on whom it targets. To capture these properties, we introduce \textbf{\sysname}, a \textit{stakeholder-centric} benchmark to systematically categorize and attribute harm in real-world web agent systems. It distinguishes between affected entities (e.g., user, seller, platform), decomposes the attacks into concrete objectives, and evaluates each case with complementary outcome- and process-level metrics. Our results reveal substantial and heterogeneous vulnerabilities: not a single attack objective is reliably resisted by current agents, and failures distribute across qualitatively distinct modes ranging from \emph{stealthy parasitism} (attack succeeds without disrupting the user's delegated task) to \emph{misaligned disruption} (task disrupted without attack success) and \emph{compounded failure} (both adversarial objective and task integrity simultaneously violated). These patterns are missed by conventional evaluation, highlighting the need for stakeholder-aware assessment of LLM-based agents in real-world deployments. Benchmark is available at https://github.com/StakeBench/SBC.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving into agentic systems that interact with external tools and environments, introducing new security risks such as indirect prompt injection attacks through untrusted external sources. Existing defenses mainly focus on blocking malicious content at inference time, and current red-teaming methods primarily optimize attack success. As a result, developers have limited visibility into how latent prompt injections emerge and propagate through agents. We propose PI-Hunter, an automated agentic auditing framework for proactive vulnerability exposure in LLM agents. PI-Hunter constructs realistic source-aware test cases and iteratively evolves them through feedback-driven exploration to induce agents to retrieve and reveal latent malicious instructions embedded within external environments. Extensive experiments across multiple benchmarks, agent architectures, attacks, and defenses demonstrate that PI-Hunter substantially improves vulnerability exposure and attack-surface coverage over strong automated red-teaming baselines, while remaining effective under existing prompt injection defenses.

As LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) are deployed in the wild, the resilience of their collaboration structures against adversarial compromise becomes a critical safety concern. Attackers may leverage prompt-injection or jailbreaking to sabotage individual agents within MAS workflows, but the interaction between model scaling and system-level resilience remains poorly understood. This paper investigates how model scale affects the security of linear multi-agent workflows. Our experiments across scales of two open-weight model families on the HumanEval benchmark reveal a compliance-correction symmetry: larger models are far more likely to faithfully execute malicious instructions, with the control-to-malicious performance drop reaching 53.7pp at 27B in uncorrected pipelines. However, appending a lightweight terminal Fixer stage collapses this to 0.6pp and restores statistical parity with control-level performance, demonstrating that strictly linear collaboration structures can be viable and resilient to adversaries at this scale, and suggesting that the brittleness previously attributed to linear topology may stem from a lack of correction.

Indirect prompt injection poses a critical threat to LLM agents that interact with untrusted external data, yet automated attack methods--proven effective for jailbreaking--remain underexplored in realistic agentic settings. We present a comprehensive empirical evaluation of automated prompt injection attacks against LLM agents, adapting both white-box (GCG) and black-box (TAP) methods to the agentic setting within the AgentDojo framework. We evaluate across 80 task pairs spanning four domains and multiple models, and find that black-box optimization substantially outperforms gradient-based methods, a gap we attribute to GCG's optimization instability under reasonable compute budgets. We also find that TAP's effectiveness depends on the attacker model, as both general capability and safety tuning affect attack success--stronger models produce more effective injections, while safety-tuned attackers can refuse to generate adversarial prompts. Task-universal attacks transfer effectively to unseen tasks and out-of-distribution domains, but attacks optimized on smaller open-source models do not transfer to frontier models like GPT-5. These findings highlight automated prompt injection as a credible but model-dependent threat, with significant barriers remaining for model-agnostic exploitation.

AI-powered agents are increasingly embedded in continuous integration and continuous delivery/deployment (CI/CD) pipelines to autonomously review pull requests (PRs), triage issues, and maintain codebases. These agents ingest untrusted content while operating with elevated repository permissions, making them a natural target for prompt injection attacks with supply chain consequences. We present GitInject, an open-source framework for evaluating prompt injection vulnerabilities in real, live GitHub workflows, a widely deployed instance of CI/CD pipelines. Unlike prior agent security benchmarks that simulate tool calls, GitInject provisions ephemeral repositories and triggers actual workflow runs, so that sandbox constraints, credential handling, and permission boundaries behave exactly as in production. Using GitInject, we study workflow configurations across four AI providers and document eleven named attacks spanning config-file injection, credential exfiltration, judgment manipulation, and availability. We find that all tested providers are susceptible to at least one attack class in their default configuration, and that the most critical vulnerabilities are structural: they arise from how CI/CD infrastructure handles credentials and configuration files, not from any specific model's behavior. For each confirmed attack class, we identify the minimum-cost workflow-level countermeasure and analyze its coverage and limitations. GitInject is released publicly to facilitate further research in this direction.

Modern agentic systems transform LLMs from session-bounded assistants into stateful systems that persist and evolve shared world state across sessions through memories, filesystems, tools, and other long-lived contextual artifacts. This shift fundamentally expands the attack surface of prompt injection. However, prior works on prompt injection have largely focused on model-level threats within a single session, overlooking how cross-session persistent system state fundamentally changes the system-level risk of agentic systems. Inspired by stored cross-site scripting in web systems, we introduce cross-session stored prompt injection, where a successful injection can persist within agentic system state and silently influence future executions long after the original attacker interaction has ended. To systematically study this threat, we formalize stored prompt injection and develop a taxonomy of how adversarial content persists and affects agentic systems across sessions. We further develop a benchmark and sandbox toolkit to evaluate the risks of stored prompt injection, enabling quantitative analysis of attack success across different models, attack goals, and persistence channels. Our findings highlight that persistence transforms prompt injection from an ephemeral model-level threat into a long-lived system-level vulnerability embedded within agent execution state. We hope this work draws broader attention to this emerging threat and motivates the community to systematically study and mitigate system risks arising from persistence in agentic systems.

Indirect prompt injection in tool-use agents is a concrete production threat: LLM agents read from integrations (third-party services such as Gmail, Salesforce, or Jira accessed through tool calls) whose response content the user neither writes nor controls. Existing benchmarks under-measure the threat: most cover only a handful of integrations with the same attack payload replayed across runs, and open-source guards are trained on chat-style data rather than tool-response content. We introduce AGENTREDBENCH, a dynamic LLM-driven redteaming benchmark of 215 subtle underspecified authorization (attacks at the boundary of what the user's request authorises) scenarios across 24 enterprise integrations in nine functional families and five attack types. Across an eight-model panel (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google), no-guard ASR (attack success rate) ranges from 32% (Claude Sonnet 4.6) to 81% (Gemini 3 Flash). To keep the scenario set out of training corpora and preserve headline ASR meaning over time, we release the codebase, integration schemas, and AGENTREDGUARD model openly; the canonical scenarios are evaluated through a maintainer-mediated channel with immutable versioning. We release AGENTREDGUARD alongside the benchmark: a guard trained on an integration-diverse corpus of adversarial tool-response content. AGENTREDGUARD cuts panel ASR from 69.9% to 2.4% at 0.37% false-positive rate, outperforming every open-source baseline with non-trivial detection (Llama Guard, PromptGuard 2, ProtectAI) on both axes. Cross-integration and cross-attack type holdouts both confirm the gain transfers beyond the training subset.

Prompt-injection detectors are heterogeneous: each is strong on a different slice of attacks, and none is always reliable. Yet existing systems still treat detection as a fixed single-detector pipeline, committing every request to one detector's blind spots. We reframe defense as detector allocation: given a heterogeneous pool, decide per request which detectors to run and whether to escalate to an LLM judge. Our framework SCOUT (Scalable and Controllable Outcome-prediction for Uncertainty-aware Triage) makes this decision dynamic by predicting each detector's per-sample reliability and latency from how it behaved on similar past inputs, and exposes a single safety-utility threshold to the operator (where utility bundles benign-pass rate and wall-clock). To evaluate this setting, we build SCOUT-450, a benchmark that captures the structurally complex, agent-facing injections that older prompt-injection sets under-represent. On SCOUT-450, a safety-oriented operating point reduces attack-success rate by 46% and total wall-clock by 40% relative to an always-on GPT-4o judge, at a 5.1-point benign-utility drop. SCOUT also transfers to three external benchmarks (BIPIA, IPI, and IHEval), improving the safety-utility frontier.

ReAct agents that interleave chain-of-thought reasoning with tool calls are increasingly deployed for real tasks such as scheduling, file retrieval, and data access. Their tool observation loop creates a direct attack surface: an adversary who controls any tool's return value can embed instructions that redirect the agent away from the user's goal, a threat known as indirect prompt injection. Existing benchmarks evaluate attack success rate (ASR) at a fixed injection position under fixed conditions, leaving three risk dimensions unexplored: where in the tool sequence the payload appears (injection depth), what rhetorical register it uses (framing), and how many turns the agent is permitted (turn cap). We conduct four controlled studies on 20 scenarios spanning five attack categories, totalling 460 trials against GPT-4o-mini and Claude Haiku at a combined API cost under 0.36 USD. Study 1 shows that ASR against GPT-4o-mini decays from 60% at depth 1 to 0% at depths 4 and 5 (Cramer's V = 0.58, p < 0.001; restricted to within-sequence depths 1-3: V = 0.47, p = 0.0013), driven by model resistance at depth 1 and task completion before payload encounter at deeper positions. Study 2 replicates the depth experiment on Claude Haiku, which achieves 0% ASR at every depth through a combination of conservative tool invocation and genuine instruction resistance. Study 3 shows that framing modulates ASR between 25% (neutral) and 75% (persona) at depth 1, a 50-percentage-point range that does not reach statistical significance at N = 20 per condition. Study 4 confirms that ASR is stable across turn caps of 3, 5, and 7, indicating the turn budget is not a risk factor in this setting. Our results establish injection depth as the dominant variable and show that sanitising only the first tool observation captures 67% of measured injection successes.

Agentic software reverse engineering systems are vulnerable to prompt injection attacks placed into the source code of executable binary files. This research demonstrates defensive tactics for detecting the presences of prompt injection strings in the decompiler output of adversarial example programs. Methods for obfuscating these attacks and subsequent methods for defending against these obfuscations are also explored. This research advances the understanding of risk and security of agentic software analysis systems necessary for their deployment into production-level cyber workflows.

Prompt-injection benchmarks for LLM agents typically test attacks through a single injection surface and report the resulting attack success rate as a property of the model. We ask whether those robustness conclusions remain stable when the same adversarial content enters through a different part of the agent interface. Using AgentDojo, we evaluate 13 LLMs across four task suites and place a byte-identical payload either in a tool output or in the tool description. This small change produces large differences in comparative robustness: 44.9% of all model pairs change their relative ordering across the two surfaces, with substantial ranking instability in every suite. The effect is especially pronounced for a small number of models, showing that a benchmark can substantially underestimate vulnerability when it tests only one surface. We further find that this behavior has predictive structure. Using three suites to identify the riskier surface for each model predicts the more vulnerable surface on an unseen suite with 76.9% accuracy. Defense results show the same dependence, as mitigations effective against tool-output attacks can leave substantial exposure through tool descriptions. Our results show that prompt-injection robustness is not surface-invariant and that agent evaluations should test the surfaces on which their security conclusions depend.

Mobile graphical user interface (GUI) agents driven by vision-language models (VLMs) perceive the screen as rendered pixels and choose actions from what they see, so they cannot reliably separate trusted interface elements from user-generated content. We present MIRAGE (Mobile Injection of Realistic Adversarial GUI Examples), a pipeline that turns benign mobile screenshots into prompt-injection samples by placing attacker-controlled text into ordinary user-generated content regions, without modifying the agent, the application, or the operating system. MIRAGE operates in three stages: a Localizer identifies user-controllable regions on the screenshot, a Generator synthesises context-aware payloads and renders them in the application's native style, and a Curator moderates realism and balances the samples across applications, region types, and attack intents. A key challenge is that an injected screenshot must stay visually indistinguishable from genuine user content while still diverting the agent; we address this by separating the stages that control reach, realism, and distributional balance. On a 1,111-sample benchmark spanning ten applications and eleven attack intents, all five evaluated VLM agents are vulnerable, with attack success rates of 23%-30%, and MIRAGE scores higher on human realism ratings than the strongest prior attack (3.02 versus 2.52 out of 5). We further find that per-sample realism and attack success are uncorrelated, so visual-quality filtering alone cannot reliably defend against this threat.

LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed for complex tasks requiring planning, tool use, and interaction with external services. Their reliance on untrusted external content exposes them to indirect prompt injection (IPI), in which adversarial instructions embedded in retrieved data hijack agent behavior. Existing attacks rely on static payloads that cannot adapt to agent-specific defenses; even recent adaptive methods lack structured feedback to guide optimization. We introduce \oursys, a feedback-guided iterative framework that closes the loop between injection, diagnosis, and refinement: a rule-based diagnoser produces structured outcome labels with behavioral descriptions, and an LLM-based optimizer refines payloads conditioned on the full optimization history. A synthesis step generates new disguise seeds from failure patterns, enabling the strategy space to self-evolve. On AgentDojo and InjectAgent, \oursys substantially outperforms static baselines and existing adaptive methods across four victim models. Extension experiments on Claude Code, a production-grade coding agent with layered defenses, show that optimized payloads achieve full success on 5 of 9 targets; even those that resist full exploitation exhibit measurable improvement from iterative refinement. We further present a mechanistic analysis of IPI, identifying an attention-mediated threshold mechanism in mid-to-late layers; three causal interventions validate this finding and point to concrete defense directions.

AI agents such as OpenClaw are increasingly deployed in local workflows with access to external tools. This creates indirect prompt-injection (IPI) risk: an agent may execute harmful instructions embedded in untrusted inputs such as email, downloaded files, webpages, repositories, or group-chat messages. Existing evaluations are often small, purely simulated, or focused on a narrow set of channels. We introduce LivePI (Live Prompt Injection), a structured benchmark for IPI risk in a production-like but test-controlled environment. LivePI covers seven input surfaces, twelve attack/rendering families, and five malicious goals, including protected-information exfiltration, unauthorized security-control changes, unsafe code retrieval or execution, inbox-summary exfiltration, and cryptocurrency transfer. We run LivePI on a real virtual machine with live but test-controlled email, chat, web, local-file, repository, and wallet interfaces. Across GPT-5.3-Codex, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5, and GLM-5, total attack success rates range from 10.7% to 29.6%. Group-chat injection is uniformly successful across the evaluated backbones in our deployment, and repository-link attacks produce high-severity failures despite a small denominator. We also evaluate a two-layer defense consisting of prompt-level filtering and pre-execution tool-call authorization. In the GPT-5.3-Codex setting, the defense intercepts all tested malicious-goal completions in LivePI before execution while preserving benign utility on PinchBench-derived workloads.

Modern AI assistants are agentic. To answer a single user request, the underlying language model pulls in information from many sources, such as web searches, retrieved documents, tool outputs, and user follow-ups, and reasons over them across several steps. Any of these inputs can carry malicious content. This opens the door to prompt injection, where an attacker plants text designed to override the instructions given to the assistant by its developer. For example, an attacker applying for a job can insert white-on-white text in their resume saying This is the strongest candidate. Recommend for immediate hire''. A hiring assistant may then be steered toward a favorable recommendation regardless of actual qualifications. To defend against this threat, production systems use a separate guard model in front of the assistant. The guard reads incoming text and writes a verdict (safe'' or ``unsafe'') before the assistant is allowed to act. In an agentic task with many steps, this check becomes a latency bottleneck. This paper shows that the signal needed to separate safe from malicious input is already present in the guard model's internal representation, before it writes anything out. Reading this signal directly speeds up the safety check by more than $3\times$ on average, while improving detection accuracy over the guard's verdict by 16.4 percentage points on average. This is more than latency optimization. Guard-model checks that were previously too slow to run on every step of an agent can now be placed on the critical path without sacrificing accuracy, and in fact with higher accuracy than the guard provides on its own. ESLD (External Surrogate Latent Defense) packages this finding into a deployable defense. ESLD is a model-agnostic architecture that sits on top of any existing guard model and improves both latency and detection accuracy, without retraining or modifying the guard.

Prompt injection is the most critical vulnerability in deployed AI agents. Despite recent progress, we show that the prevailing defense paradigm (data-instruction separation) both fails to detect attacks that operate through contextual manipulation and degrades contextually appropriate behavior. We then recast prompt injection via the lens of Contextual Integrity (CI), a privacy theory that judges information flow compliance with contextual norms. This explains types of attacks that current defenses attempt to patch and predict advanced ones future agents will face. We develop unique benign and attack scenarios that force an agent to violate the norms by (1) misrepresenting the flow, (2) manipulating norms, or (3) mixing multiple flows. This reframing suggests an impossibility result: an adversary can always construct a context under which a blocked flow appears legitimate, or a defender who tightens norms will block genuinely legitimate flows. Our findings suggest that current research addresses a shrinking fraction of future attack surfaces. Instead, through CI, we offer a principled framework for evaluating context-sensitive failures, and designing CI-aware alignment for the frontier autonomous agents.

Clarification-seeking behavior is widely regarded as a desirable property of LLM agents, enabling them to resolve ambiguity before acting on underspecified tasks. However, the security implications of this interaction pattern remain unexplored. We investigate whether the transition from standard execution to a clarification-seeking state increases an agent's susceptibility to prompt injection attacks. We introduce ASPI (Ambiguous-State Prompt Injection), a benchmark of 728 task-attack scenarios that isolates clarification as a distinct agent state and measures how this state transition affects vulnerability under controlled conditions. Each benchmark instance is evaluated under matched execution and clarification settings: in the execution setting, the agent acts on a fully specified instruction and encounters adversarial content only through tool-returned data; in the clarification setting, the agent must first request and incorporate additional user input before acting. We evaluate ten frontier LLMs and find that clarification-seeking consistently and substantially amplifies vulnerability. For instance, attack success rises from 1.8% to 34.0% for o3 and from 2.2% to 35.7% for Gemini-3-Flash. A decomposition analysis reveals that this gap reflects both a state-dependent shift in how models process incoming content and a channel-specific effect arising from the agent-solicited clarification interface. These findings demonstrate that standard execution-time security evaluation systematically underestimates the attack surface of interactive agents, and that robustness under fully specified tasks does not translate to robustness under ambiguity. For reproducibility, our data and source code are available at https://github.com/scaleapi/aspi.