arXiv:2602. 20064v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents: they plan, call tools, read untrusted data, and act on the results.
By Zac Garby, Andrew D. Gordon, David Sands
The paper introduces Semantic Overlays, a steering technique that adds non‑textual annotations to a language model’s input by applying learned adapters at specific prefill positions. These overlays create an out‑of‑band channel that encodes span identity and complex semantics, enabling the model to interpret marked text differently—such as rewriting code in a specified language or ignoring executable instructions. Experiments show that Semantic Overlays dramatically reduce prompt‑injection success rates while preserving model utility and readability of marked spans.
By Joshua Penman
The paper discusses how large language model agents now act as privileged principals with kernel‑grade authority, yet lack the trusted mediation traditionally required for operating‑system security. It introduces a taxonomy that distinguishes between provenance‑based deterministic checks and content‑semantic checks, identifying a central mediation gap in distinguishing data from instruction and authorized from unauthorized actions. The authors argue that this gap creates an irreducible risk of undetected attacks whenever inputs and actions are not pre‑enumerated, and they propose defenses across runtime monitoring, architectural separation, and authorization while critiquing current evaluation practices. They extend the analysis to AI‑native operating systems where the model itself serves as the arbitration core, outlining design constraints, challenges, and a research agenda.
By Li Zhang, Yang Sun, Jie Shi
arXiv:2606. 26057v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents are granted access to tools, APIs, and other infrastructure, making them active principals in those systems.
By Seth Dobrin, {\L}ukasz Chmiel
arXiv:2606. 09549v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using large language model (LLM) agents face two distinct security failures: unauthorized external actions and exposure of sensitive plaintext inside the runtime before any final output check can intervene.
By Yuhan Ma, Stefan Schmid
arXiv:2606. 31639v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are no longer only text generators.
By Seyed Bagher Hashemi Natanzi, Bo Tang
arXiv:2605. 08442v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We discover that prompt-injection success and tool-execution success are separable safety properties: defenses that block injection do not necessarily block execution, and vice versa.
By Jun Wen Leong
arXiv:2601. 09923v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI agents are vulnerable to prompt injection attacks, where malicious content hijacks agent behavior.
By Hanna Foerster, Tom Blanchard, Kristina Nikoli\'c, Ilia Shumailov, Cheng Zhang, Robert Mullins, Nicolas Papernot, Florian Tram\`er, Yiren Zhao
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...
By Yibo Peng, Long Lian, David Wagner, Sizhe Chen
Agent Skills can specify procedural and resource obligations for tool use, and language models instantiate them as concrete programs. However, when models turn this guidance into code for existing too...
ActGov is a runtime enforcement framework that validates each action proposed by a large language model (LLM) agent before it interacts with external tools, ensuring that actions stay within task‑scoped authorization boundaries and comply with dynamically constructed policies. It builds policies from tool specifications, benign tasks, and failure traces, verifying updates via SMT‑based counterexample checking. In evaluations on AgentDojo and AgentDyn benchmarks, ActGov consistently reduces indirect prompt‑injection attack success while maintaining task utility, outperforming existing defenses.
By Kaiyuan Zhang, Yuke Peng, Ke Jiang, Yinqian Zhang
Inference-time safety methods for large language models have proliferated, yet no systematic comparison exists. We evaluate five defense paradigms (no defense, static steering, CAST, AlphaSteer, probe-gated) across seven instruction-tuned models (7-31B) and five attack types (GCG, AutoDAN, DeepInception, prefilling, intent laundering).