Physical Navigation Prompt Injection
- Published
- Analyzed
Cite & share
Citation metadata is maintained by the primary source and may reflect a later revision.
Paper-evaluated models(3)
- GPT-3.5
- GPT-4
- Llama 2 7B
On this page
Description
LLM-based navigation agents, including NavGPT and prompt-tuned outdoor agents, are vulnerable to adaptive prompt injection attacks. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to hijack the physical movement of the agent by embedding optimized malicious instructions into benign natural language inputs. The issue arises because the agents parse user instructions to generate executable plans without sufficient separation between control logic and untrusted input. The PINA (Prompt Injection Attack against Navigation Agents) framework exploits this by utilizing a feedback-loop mechanism—comprising a Distribution Analyzer (measuring KL divergence and token probability shifts) and an Attack Evaluator—to iteratively refine injection prompts. This technique functions effectively in black-box settings and persists despite long-context histories that typically dilute static injections.
Examples
Specific injection strings are dynamically generated based on the target environment and instruction set.
- See repository at https://github.com/nikikiki6/PINA (opens in a new tab) for the PINA framework implementation, including the
Attack EvaluatorandAdaptive Prompt Refinementalgorithms used to generate effective injection prompts against the R2R (Room-to-Room) dataset.
Impact
Successful exploitation results in the physical misdirection of the navigation agent. This causes:
- Mission Failure: The agent fails to reach the designated target (Attack Success Rate of 75% on indoor agents and 100% on outdoor agents).
- Operational Inefficiency: drastically reduced SPL (Success weighted by Path Length) and increased trajectory length.
- Physical Safety Risks: The agent can be forced into unsafe routes or maneuvers, potentially leading to property damage or physical harm in the operating environment.
Affected Systems
- NavGPT (utilizing GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4)
- LLM-based outdoor navigation agents (specifically those based on prompt-tuning architectures like Balcı et al.)
- Robotic navigation systems integrating LLMs for natural language instruction following without strict input sanitization layers.
Mitigation Steps
- Implement "self-reminder" strategies where system instructions are prefixed with reinforcement phrases (e.g., "You should remind yourself of the original goal...") to suppress injected content (Note: The paper demonstrates this only partially reduces ASR from 75.00% to 68.80%).
- Utilize the PINA evaluation framework to conduct adversarial training, exposing the agent to optimized injection prompts during the tuning phase to improve resilience.
Research context and provenance
- Catalog identifier
- LMVD-7573a327
- Internal research identifier, not an official CVE identifier.
- Evidence and verification
- Paper-reported; independent reproduction is not documented.
- Primary research source linked.
- Severity
- Not rated by this catalog.
- Source and publication type
- arXiv · Research preprint.
- Peer-review status is not provided by this source.
- Author and publication status
- Author metadata is not stored; see the primary paper.
- Threat model and attacker access
- Black-box model, service, or application access.
- Related deployment categories
- Agent workflows
- Taxonomy labels only; paper-specific deployment prerequisites are not inferred.
- Affected systems
- NavGPT (utilizing GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4) LLM-based outdoor navigation agents (specifically those based on prompt-tuning architectures like Balcı et al.) Robotic navigation systems integrating LLMs for natural…
Research Paper
PINA: Prompt Injection Attack against Navigation Agents
Primary source: arXiv. Findings are reported by the cited research and have not been independently verified.
View PaperEvidence
This entry is based on a primary research source. Its findings are paper-reported; independent reproduction and verification are not claimed.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13612Related research
- LLM Judge Manipulation
Published March 31, 2026 · Model layer, Application layer, Prompt layer
- Agent Lifecycle Compound Threats
Published March 12, 2026 · Application layer, Infrastructure, Prompt layer
- TEE Advisor Hallucination
Published February 23, 2026 · Application layer, Prompt layer, Injection