Attack Type
Techniques for extracting sensitive information from models
60 matching entries out of 101 in this category
Deleting a memory record can leave its information in an agent's summaries, pending plans and KV cache. The paper evaluates revocation across this derived execution state.
Source: arXiv
Exposed retrieval embeddings can reveal source text. SHAQ evaluates indexing generated queries instead of direct document embeddings to reduce that leakage.
Source: arXiv
The authors report historical isolation failures in client-held encrypted reasoning blocks across compatible provider API contexts.
Source: arXiv
The MTGuard study evaluates unsafe Model Context Protocol tool calls originating from compromised server data, host-side execution changes, and malicious user-controlled resources. Its hybrid monitor combines pre-execution parameter inspection, behavioral observation, and post-execution result verification across browser-automation and financial-analysis agents.
Source: arXiv
The paper reports a reproducible black-box evaluation showing that adversarial user queries can cause deployed LLM applications to reveal hidden system prompts. In the authors’ measurement of 1,200 applications across six commercial platforms, 1,064 applications leaked prompt content (81.0%–93.5% per anonymized platform). This is a paper-reported result, not independently verified here. LeakBench and the official artifact repository provide defensive benchmark materials for controlled testing…
Source: arXiv
OpenClaw is vulnerable to persistent memory poisoning, allowing an attacker to manipulate the agent's long-term memory store (MEMORY.md) via prompt injection. Because the autonomous agent continuously integrates this memory file as context for all subsequent reasoning and task planning, injected payloads act as durable behavioral constraints. This allows an attacker to persistently alter the agent's core policy, manipulate tool selection, and hijack future sessions without any further…
Source: arXiv
A vulnerability in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (LLM-MAS) allows an attacker who controls a single arbitrary agent to map and extract the system's entire confidential communication topology. Unlike prior attacks that rely on direct identity queries and administrative privileges, this attack infers topology stealthily purely from contextual and linguistic signals (stylometry, role-specific syntax), bypassing standard keyword-based and identity-filtering defenses. The exploit relies on a…
Source: arXiv
Inference-time Personally Identifiable Information (PII) leakage is significantly amplified when using Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting or reasoning-enabled Large Language Models (LLMs). When an attacker or user elicits step-by-step reasoning or utilizes models with native "thinking" token budgets, sensitive context data provided in the prompt is directly resurfaced into intermediate reasoning steps or the final output. This bypasses output-level privacy policies instructing the model not to…
Source: arXiv
Automatic Prefix Caching (APC) in multi-tenant LLM serving systems introduces a timing side-channel vulnerability that permits cross-tenant data leakage. APC shares computed Key-Value (KV) tensors across different users when their requests share identical initial tokens. Because reusing cached tensors is significantly faster than recomputing them, a measurable difference in Time-To-First-Token (TTFT) exists between cache hits and misses. An attacker can exploit this shared cache by sending…
Source: arXiv
Agentic Large Language Model (LLM) systems utilizing persistent memory, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, and external tool connectors are vulnerable to Logic-layer Prompt Control Injection (LPCI). An attacker can inject obfuscated (e.g., encoded, structurally nested, or semantically reframed) payloads into external memory stores or RAG documents. These payloads bypass conventional inference-time plaintext content filters, persist across session boundaries, and remain dormant…
Source: arXiv