Prompt Injection Attacks on AI Agents

Agentic systems based on large language models (LLMs) operate not merely as text generators but as autonomous entities that dynamically retrieve information and invoke tools. This execution model shifts the attack surface from traditional build-time artifacts to inference-time dependencies, exposing agents to manipulation through untrusted data and probabilistic capability resolution. While prior work has examined model-level vulnerabilities, security risks arising from the complex, cyclic runtime behavior of agents remain fragmented. This paper systematizes existing research into a unified runtime framework. We categorize threats into data supply chain attacks (distinguishing between transient context injection and persistent memory poisoning) and tool supply chain attacks (spanning discovery, implementation, and invocation phases). Crucially, we identify the emergence of the Viral Agent Loop, where agents effectively become vectors for self-propagating generative worms that require no code vulnerabilities to spread. We argue for a transition to a Zero-Trust Runtime Architecture, where context is treated as untrusted control flow, and tool execution is bounded by cryptographic provenance rather than semantic likelihood.

LLMs see the world as a single stream of text, partitioned into roles like <user> or <tool>. We trace prompt injection to role confusion: models perceive the source of text from how it sounds, not its labeled role. A command hidden in a webpage hijacks an agent simply because it sounds like <user> text, despite its <tool> label. We design role probes to measure how LLMs internally perceive "who is speaking," and find that injected text occupies the same representational space as the trusted role it imitates. We demonstrate this with CoT Forgery, a zero-shot attack that injects fabricated reasoning into user prompts and tool outputs. Models mistake the forgery for their own thoughts, yielding 60% attack success against frontier models with near-zero baselines. Strikingly, the degree of role confusion predicts attack success before a single token is generated. This mechanism generalizes beyond CoT Forgery to standard agent prompt injections, revealing prompt injection as a measurable consequence of role perception. To the model, sounding like a role is indistinguishable from being one. Project page and writeup: https://role-confusion.github.io

Agent hijacking, highlighted by OWASP as a critical threat to the Large Language Model (LLM) ecosystem, enables adversaries to manipulate execution by injecting malicious instructions into retrieved content. Most existing attacks rely on manually crafted, semantics-driven prompt manipulation, which often yields low attack success rates and limited transferability to closed-source commercial models. In this paper, we propose Phantom, an automated agent hijacking framework built upon Structured Template Injection that targets the fundamental architectural mechanisms of LLM agents. Our key insight is that agents rely on specific chat template tokens to separate system, user, assistant, and tool instructions. By injecting optimized structured templates into the retrieved context, we induce role confusion and cause the agent to misinterpret the injected content as legitimate user instructions or prior tool outputs. To enhance attack transferability against black-box agents, Phantom introduces a novel attack template search framework. We first perform multi-level template augmentation to increase structural diversity and then train a Template Autoencoder (TAE) to embed discrete templates into a continuous, searchable latent space. Subsequently, we apply Bayesian optimization to efficiently identify optimal adversarial vectors that are decoded into high-potency structured templates. Extensive experiments on Qwen, GPT, and Gemini demonstrate that our framework significantly outperforms existing baselines in both Attack Success Rate (ASR) and query efficiency. Moreover, we identified over 70 vulnerabilities in real-world commercial products that have been confirmed by vendors, underscoring the practical severity of structured template-based hijacking and providing an empirical foundation for securing next-generation agentic systems.

Self-evolving LLM agents update their internal state across sessions, often by writing and reusing long-term memory. This design improves performance on long-horizon tasks but creates a security risk: untrusted external content observed during a benign session can be stored as memory and later treated as instruction. We study this risk and formalize a persistent attack we call a Zombie Agent, where an attacker covertly implants a payload that survives across sessions, effectively turning the agent into a puppet of the attacker. We present a black-box attack framework that uses only indirect exposure through attacker-controlled web content. The attack has two phases. During infection, the agent reads a poisoned source while completing a benign task and writes the payload into long-term memory through its normal update process. During trigger, the payload is retrieved or carried forward and causes unauthorized tool behavior. We design mechanism-specific persistence strategies for common memory implementations, including sliding-window and retrieval-augmented memory, to resist truncation and relevance filtering. We evaluate the attack on representative agent setups and tasks, measuring both persistence over time and the ability to induce unauthorized actions while preserving benign task quality. Our results show that memory evolution can convert one-time indirect injection into persistent compromise, which suggests that defenses focused only on per-session prompt filtering are not sufficient for self-evolving agents.

Clawdbot is a self-hosted, tool-using personal AI agent with a broad action space spanning local execution and web-mediated workflows, which raises heightened safety and security concerns under ambiguity and adversarial steering. We present a trajectory-centric evaluation of Clawdbot across six risk dimensions. Our test suite samples and lightly adapts scenarios from prior agent-safety benchmarks (including ATBench and LPS-Bench) and supplements them with hand-designed cases tailored to Clawdbot's tool surface. We log complete interaction trajectories (messages, actions, tool-call arguments/outputs) and assess safety using both an automated trajectory judge (AgentDoG-Qwen3-4B) and human review. Across 34 canonical cases, we find a non-uniform safety profile: performance is generally consistent on reliability-focused tasks, while most failures arise under underspecified intent, open-ended goals, or benign-seeming jailbreak prompts, where minor misinterpretations can escalate into higher-impact tool actions. We supplemented the overall results with representative case studies and summarized the commonalities of these cases, analyzing the security vulnerabilities and typical failure modes that Clawdbot is prone to trigger in practice.

Web-based agents powered by large language models are increasingly used for tasks such as email management or professional networking. Their reliance on dynamic web content, however, makes them vulnerable to prompt injection attacks: adversarial instructions hidden in interface elements that persuade the agent to divert from its original task. We introduce the Task-Redirecting Agent Persuasion Benchmark (TRAP), a benchmark for studying how persuasion techniques misguide autonomous web agents on realistic tasks. Across six frontier models, agents are susceptible to prompt injection in 25% of tasks on average (13% for GPT-5 to 43% for DeepSeek-R1), with small interface or contextual changes often doubling success rates and revealing systemic, psychologically driven vulnerabilities in web-based agents. We also provide a modular social-engineering injection framework with controlled experiments on high-fidelity website clones, allowing for further benchmark expansion.

Language agents are moving from single-user assistants to shared collaborators in workspaces, forums, and group chats. A shared agent observes interleaved messages from multiple users, maintains persistent context, and executes tool actions, creating a boundary problem absent from standard single-user agents: the agent must decide not only whether an instruction is safe, but which user or task it is allowed to govern. We identify cross-user poisoning (CUP), where an adversary injects a message into shared context that is later applied while the agent serves a benign user, causing unauthorized actions or responses outside the instruction's intended scope. We validate CUP on two deployed multi-user agents, Continua and ElizaOS, and introduce MURMUR, a framework for evaluating shared-context agents under concurrent multi-user interactions. Across Slack, Workspace, and Airline domains, CUP achieves high attack success, persists across later interactions, and remains substantially more effective than matched prompt-injection attacks. We evaluate boundary-scoping defenses and find that context summarization alone is insufficient, while task clustering and provenance prompting substantially reduce non-adaptive propagation. These results show that robust multi-user agents require explicit user/task scoping rather than generic input filtering or context compression.

Multiple prompt injection attacks have been proposed against web agents. At the same time, various methods have been developed to detect general prompt injection attacks, but none have been systematically evaluated for web agents. In this work, we bridge this gap by presenting the first comprehensive benchmark study on detecting prompt injection attacks targeting web agents. We begin by introducing a fine-grained categorization of such attacks based on the threat model. We then construct datasets containing both malicious and benign samples: malicious text segments generated by different attacks, benign text segments from four categories, malicious images produced by attacks, and benign images from two categories. Next, we systematize both text-based and image-based detection methods. Finally, we evaluate their performance across multiple scenarios. Our key findings show that while some detectors can identify attacks that rely on explicit textual instructions or visible image perturbations with moderate to high accuracy, they largely fail against attacks that omit explicit instructions or employ imperceptible perturbations. Our datasets and code are released at: https://github.com/Norrrrrrr-lyn/WAInjectBench.

Coding agents powered by large language models are becoming central modules of modern IDEs, helping users perform complex tasks by invoking tools. While powerful, tool invocation opens a substantial attack surface. Prior work has demonstrated attacks against general-purpose and domain-specific agents, but none have focused on the security risks of tool invocation in coding agents. To fill this gap, we conduct the first systematic red-teaming of six popular real-world coding agents: Cursor, Claude Code, Copilot, Windsurf, Cline, and Trae. Our red-teaming proceeds in two phases. In Phase 1, we perform prompt leakage reconnaissance to recover system prompts. We discover a general vulnerability, ToolLeak, which allows malicious prompt exfiltration through benign argument retrieval during tool invocation. In Phase 2, we hijack the agent's tool-invocation behavior using a novel two-channel prompt injection in the tool description and return values, achieving remote code execution (RCE). We adaptively construct payloads using security information leaked in Phase 1. In emulation across five backends, our method outperforms baselines on Claude-Sonnet-4, Claude-Sonnet-4.5, Grok-4, and GPT-5. On real agents, our approach succeeds on 19 of 25 agent-LLM pairs, achieving leakage on every agent using Claude and Grok backends. For tool-invocation hijacking, we obtain RCE on every tested agent-LLM pair, with our two-channel method delivering the highest success rate. We provide case studies on Cursor and Claude Code, analyze security guardrails of external and built-in tools, and conclude with practical defense recommendations.

Prompt injection attacks, where untrusted data contains an injected prompt to manipulate the system, have been listed as the top security threat to AI agents. By fine-tuning on simulated prompt injections, SecAlign, a leading open defense, reports LLMs with good test-time robustness and negligible benign utility drop. By scaling up training and evaluations, however, we find that SecAlign actually suffers from significant utility degradation, especially in agentic tasks where the threat of prompt injection is prominent. Motivated by this, we propose Meta-SecAlign for utility-preserving defense by (1) randomized injection position during training to avoid shortcut learning and (2) self-generated responses as high-quality in-distribution training labels. Across general knowledge, instruction following, and agentic workflows (on tool-calling and web-navigation), Meta-SecAlign maintains almost all the undefended LLM's utility while achieving better overall security than SecAlign against various static and GCG adaptive attacks. Experiments use Llama-3.1-8B, Llama-3.3-70B, Llama-4-Scout, Qwen3-4B, and Qwen3.6-27B on 6 prompt injection benchmarks including AgentDojo, InjecAgent, WASP, and SEP. Below are links for the code (https://github.com/facebookresearch/Meta_SecAlign), Meta-SecAlign-70B (https://huggingface.co/facebook/Meta-SecAlign-70B), and Meta-SecAlign-8B (https://huggingface.co/facebook/Meta-SecAlign-8B) models.

Indirect prompt injection attacks exploit a fundamental weakness of LLMs: executing unauthorized tasks from untrusted sources. Despite the practical significance of this attack vector, existing benchmarks rely on small sets of template-based attacks (100-1,000 examples) that fail to capture the diversity and adaptiveness of real-world adversaries. Consequently, benchmarks are saturated and overfit to static attacks. We introduce LLMail-Inject, a large-scale benchmark of 208,095 distinct human-written attack prompts collected through a public red-teaming challenge with 839 participants. LLMail-Inject evaluates the attack's complete chain of execution: prompts must be retrieved from an email database, evade production-level defenses, and trigger unauthorized tool calls with correct arguments. Evaluation reveals that models that achieve 5% attack success rate (ASR) on existing benchmarks fail more on LLMail-Inject: Meta SecAlign--specifically trained against prompt injection--still yields 32% ASR, GPT-4o exhibits 58% ASR, and GPT-5 mini 47% ASR. We further demonstrate that attacks transfer across domains, achieving 37% ASR on proof-of-concept coding tasks and 28-45% ASR on file management tasks. We release our challenge platform and curated evaluation subsets at multiple difficulty tiers and the full dataset with rich annotations.