DriftNet is a dual‑head trajectory Transformer designed to detect and localize prompt injection attacks in large language model agents. It processes logged tool‑call trajectories, classifying each as compromised or not while labeling every step as benign, injection point, hijacked, or failed injection. On the AgentDrift benchmark, DriftNet achieves high accuracy, with an F1 score of 0.983, 98.7% exact injection‑point recovery, and low false‑alarm rates.
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: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:2610.00400v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-turn attacks on agentic systems can compose individually permissible actions into harmful outcomes, challenging defenses that assess actions or...
arXiv:2610.41803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Detectors can flag hijacked large language model (LLM) agents from the traces of the tools they call. In the eleven evaluations we audited, attacks o...
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 proposes universal, tool‑based defenses for large language model agents that use external tools, addressing four types of adversarial attacks: direct and indirect prompt injection, memory poisoning, and backdoor attacks. Two main defenses are introduced: Attacker Tool Filtering, which uses anomaly detection to remove suspicious tools, and Normal Tool Recalling, which restores the agent’s original toolset before planning. The authors also add prompt‑based defenses such as Chain‑of‑Thought prompting and self‑reflection, and demonstrate that these methods dramatically lower attack success rates—often to 0%—across multiple open‑source and proprietary LLMs while maintaining or improving task performance.
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:2608. 14680v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reliability in LLM-based agentic systems is a property of the whole execution (its tool calls, model calls, guardrails, and inter-agent messages), not of the final answer alone, yet evaluating only task outcomes reveals little about how or why a run fails.
arXiv:2608. 06477v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Computer-use agents (CUAs) face a growing threat from indirect prompt injection, where adversarial instructions are planted in the environment such as web pages.
arXiv:2608.00745v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Modern endpoint detection systems face a fundamental tension: signature-based approaches are trivially evaded by polymorphic or adaptive threats, w...
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. 16199v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent LLM systems increasingly rely on a Planner to decompose goals into sub-task sequences that downstream Executor and Critic agents execute and audit.