The paper introduces a provenance‑aware execution graph for long‑horizon LLM agents, defining influence distance (DI) as the shortest structural path from an untrusted source to a sensitive action. Compared to the traditional sequence distance (DT), DI is always less than or equal to DT, revealing a median gap of nine hops in 454 injection–sink pairs across multiple models and datasets. The study shows that most pairs exhibit a non‑zero gap, and a deterministic DI‑based gate can block attacks missed by a sequence‑only gate without extra benign blocking.
arXiv:2609.06972v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents complete tasks by issuing sequences of tool calls, and every observation they read is a channel through which an indirect prompt injection...
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. 24893v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent LLM systems can be attacked by a payload that no single agent ever holds in full: a poisoned tool hides encrypted fragments in its observations, spreads them across several agents, and an external step reassembles and executes them after the run.
arXiv:2512. 04668v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Graph topology is a fundamental determinant of memory leakage in multi-agent LLM systems, yet its effects remain poorly quantified.
arXiv:2607. 02514v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI coding agents become more autonomous, they increasingly ship code iteratively, with the codebase persisting across sessions.
arXiv:2607. 12058v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Given a vulnerability-fixing commit, trigger localization asks which specific statement turns the vulnerable program state into a concrete unsafe operation.
arXiv:2606. 09084v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents interact with the world through actions that persist state in artifacts (e.
arXiv:2607. 19430v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent LLM applications chain a planner, worker agents, a verifier, and a synthesizer, and every hop between agents is an unmonitored channel through which an adversary can smuggle instructions.
arXiv:2607. 18826v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-agent defenses are typically evaluated one session at a time.
arXiv:2606. 30755v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Claw-like AI agents (e.
The paper demonstrates that safety mechanisms for autonomous large language model agents fail to compose across iterative loops, as trajectory‑scoped monitors cannot detect attacks whose evidence is spread over multiple iterations. It introduces LoopHarness, a system that maintains a persistent, non‑decaying safety state across loops, bounding unauthorized actions with a constant that does not grow with the number of iterations. The authors provide a comprehensive evaluation protocol, including attacks that require cross‑iteration evidence, module ablations, and adaptive white‑box red‑team testing.
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.