Attack Surface
Security research involving prompt handling and processing
54 matching entries out of 610 in this category
Lower-trust tool content can assert facts beyond its authority and distort an agent's decisions. PIPES screens response units against source provenance and expected field meaning.
Source: arXiv
IssueTrojanBench studies indirect prompt injection when a coding agent processes an apparently ordinary software-development issue or related artifact. Starting with six legitimate seed issues from two Python repositories, the authors construct 696 adversarial issue variants spanning four unsafe-action families and six delivery formats, then execute those variants across six agent-model configurations.
Source: arXiv
Untrusted issue descriptions and tool responses can redirect privileged coding and tool agents. Twin Agent separates exploration from execution and restricts the information exchanged between them.
Source: arXiv
LLM-based coding agents are vulnerable to Document-Driven Implicit Payload Execution (DDIPE) via supply-chain poisoning of third-party agent skills. Attackers can embed malicious logic directly into legitimate-looking code examples and configuration templates within skill documentation files (e.g., SKILL.md). Because coding agents ingest this metadata into their context windows and treat the documentation as an authoritative reference, the underlying LLM silently reproduces and executes the…
Source: arXiv
Autonomous LLM agents deployed in dynamic, multi-step tool-calling environments are highly vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injections (IPI) embedded in external content. Surface-level defensive prompts and monitoring mechanisms (such as Prompt Warning, the Sandwich Method, Spotlighting, Keyword Filtering, and LLM-as-a-Judge) consistently fail to prevent exploitation and occasionally exacerbate the vulnerability by introducing adversarial distraction. While compromised agents exhibit…
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 multi-step tool execution vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing the Model Context Protocol (MCP) or similar tool-calling frameworks. Safety guardrails in aligned LLMs typically evaluate static, single-turn text generation. Attackers can bypass these text-centric guardrails by supplying adversarial prompts that force the agent into a complex planning sequence. The agent is manipulated into executing a trajectory of seemingly benign individual tool invocations…
Source: arXiv
The OpenClaw autonomous agent framework lacks execution sandboxing, running agents directly on the host machine with the disk and system privileges of the host user. This architecture allows attackers to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) and arbitrary data exfiltration via Indirect Prompt Injection. By embedding malicious instructions within external data sources (e.g., scraped web pages or uploaded documents), an attacker can hijack the agent's planning capabilities to sequentially chain…
Source: arXiv
Embodied Large Language Models (LLMs) used for real-world agent planning are vulnerable to Action-level Manipulation (dubbed "Blindfold"), a jailbreak technique that bypasses semantic-level safety filters by exploiting the models' limited spatial and causal reasoning regarding physical consequences. Attackers can use an adversarial proxy LLM to decompose a semantically harmful intent into a sequence of individually benign primitive actions. To evade advanced semantic correlation checks…
Source: arXiv
Generative reward models deployed as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) evaluators contain a logic bypass vulnerability where superficial "master key" inputs trigger false positive rewards regardless of actual response quality. Instead of evaluating the candidate's output, large judge models are inadvertently triggered by specific token sequences to solve the prompt independently. This allows malicious actors or policy models undergoing reinforcement learning to consistently game the reward signal by…
Source: arXiv