arXiv:2605. 30837v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Prompt-injection detectors are heterogeneous: each is strong on a different slice of attacks, and none is always reliable.
arXiv:2609.22510v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLM applications integrate with external tools, they are increasingly exposed to indirect prompt injection (IPI), where adversarial instructions a...
arXiv:2606. 26479v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
arXiv:2608.21500v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Prompt injection is listed as the \#1 threat to AI agents. When an agent accesses external data from websites, files, or emails, an attacker may inje...
arXiv:2603. 13026v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Prompt injection poses serious security risks to real-world LLM applications, particularly autonomous agents.
arXiv:2609.36570v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Indirect prompt injection makes an LLM agent treat untrusted retrieved text as instructions. We present CounterSteer, an inference-time defense that...
The paper introduces CoRL, a co-evolutionary reinforcement learning framework designed to defend against adaptive indirect prompt-injection attacks on tool-augmented language agents. CoRL operates in three stages—attacker fine‑tuning, bilateral Co‑PPO training, and defender fine‑tuning—using verifier‑grounded repairs to adapt to changing attack strategies. Experiments on 1,514 executions show that CoRL reduces attack success rates to 0% while improving task utility, demonstrating its effectiveness against adaptive adversaries.
arXiv:2606. 15441v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Indirect prompt injection attacks hijack LLM-based agents by embedding malicious instructions in third-party data that the agent retrieves during task execution.
arXiv:2609.22818v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Memory-poisoning defenses for LLM agents are typically evaluated by their ability to prevent attacks. However, the traffic they process is rarely adv...
arXiv:2607. 18063v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based agents process external content, exposing them to prompt injection and multi-turn manipulation.
arXiv:2606. 14517v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based guardrails have emerged as a highly effective defense against prompt injection and jailbreak attacks in autonomous agents.
arXiv:2606. 06529v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An attacker that strategically chooses when to attack is much harder to catch than one that attacks indiscriminately.
arXiv:2609.38291v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are vulnerable to safety risks such as injected malicious instructions or misleading information, motivating runtim...