A stored interaction can later steer a memory-augmented agent's answer without direct memory-store access. The study evaluates persistent response manipulation in MemoryOS and MemGPT.
Source: arXiv
Attack Type
Attacks targeting training data, fine-tuning, retrieval knowledge bases, or persistent agent memory
114 matching entries
A stored interaction can later steer a memory-augmented agent's answer without direct memory-store access. The study evaluates persistent response manipulation in MemoryOS and MemGPT.
Source: arXiv
Self-evolving agent-skill systems may promote recurring, attacker-controlled execution records into persistent reusable instructions. The paper evaluates whether poisoned but task-plausible trajectories survive aggregation and appear in generated skill artifacts, using inert canary behaviors and two structurally different skill-evolution pipelines.
Source: arXiv
Third-party fine-tuning adapters may contain backdoors. Z-PEFT screens adapter weights using spectral features, evaluated on PADBench's 13,300 adapters.
Source: arXiv
MemSecBench follows malicious agent-memory content from initial write through persistence, retrieval, action selection, execution, and attempted selective repair. Its controlled Write–Execute–Forget protocol evaluates 310 human-reviewed cases across two harnesses, four memory backends, three model backends, and seven evidence-gated lifecycle checkpoints.
Source: arXiv
AgentS4D measures unsafe actions and state changes across complete workspace-agent executions rather than treating task completion or isolated model responses as safety evidence. Its 328 sandboxed cases introduce risky content through user requests, documents, web resources, tools, third-party skills, and persistent memory, then compare the same cases across four agent harnesses and five model backends.
Source: arXiv
The paper presents SkillSec-Eval, a controlled evaluation of attacks against reusable agent skills across repository admission, semantic retrieval, planner selection, runtime execution, and updates. It reports that malicious metadata, retrieval manipulation, unsafe workflow composition, and poisoned updates can cause agents to retrieve, select, or execute unintended skills. These are paper-reported benchmark results, not independently verified vulnerabilities in a named production product.
Source: arXiv
The paper describes GhostWriter, a reproducible two-phase attack against tool-using agents with persistent memory: untrusted email or calendar content is admitted into long-term memory, then later retrieved during a benign user task and treated as trusted context. In the authors’ controlled evaluation, this could steer subsequent agent actions despite the adversary lacking direct access to the agent, memory store, account, or later prompt. The paper reports an average 98% memory-injection rate…
Source: arXiv
The paper describes a specific, reproducible retrieval-layer poisoning issue: an adversary with knowledge-base write access can add semantically broad, cross-category policy rules that rank in top-k retrieval across varied queries without knowing runtime prompts. In the authors' isolated PA-LLM-RAG evaluation, one injected rule caused at least one poisoned rule to enter the LLM context for 17/20 prompts. Safe defensive reproduction should use a synthetic policy KB, synthetic benign prompts…
Source: arXiv
The paper describes a reproducible agent-memory poisoning issue: untrusted content stored in persistent memory can later influence consequential actions after its origin is laundered through agent summarization, trusted-tool echo, or manufactured corroboration. The paper reports that content scoring, lineage, and single-session capability/IFC defenses remain vulnerable because they decide authority from malleable content or derivation signals. This is a paper-reported evaluation; it was not…
Source: arXiv
The paper describes and evaluates a reproducible application-layer weakness in agents with persistent memory: untrusted external content can cross the memory-write boundary, be stored as trusted factual, experience, or procedural memory, and influence later sessions. It identifies four write channels—explicit writes, policy-driven writes, compaction, and experience-to-procedure synthesis—and six attack classes. For safe defensive testing, use MPBench’s two-phase structure in an isolated agent…
Source: arXiv