Attack Surface
Security research involving prompt handling and processing
536 matching entries out of 610 in this category
Untrusted document images can redirect vision-language agents across instruction and tool-authorization boundaries. Repeat-After-Me evaluates six victim models on constructed document tasks.
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
The paper presents a concrete, reproducible security evaluation in which attacker-controlled instructions embedded in retrieved external content steer stateful, tool-calling LLM agents toward unauthorized actions. It adapts white-box GCG and black-box TAP to AgentDojo and evaluates single-task and task-universal attacks across 80 task pairs in four domains. The reported results show that semantic black-box optimization can discover functional prompt injections more effectively than…
Source: arXiv
The paper reports a reproducible black-box jailbreak evaluation in which an evolutionary search generates simulated, role-labeled multi-turn dialogue histories and submits them as a single request. Five semantic mutators and graded judge feedback optimize conversational priming that can induce harmful responses despite direct-request refusals. Results are paper-reported and not independently verified.
Source: arXiv
LLM agents deployed with tool access are vulnerable to goal-reframing prompt injection, which reliably bypasses explicit rule-following and safety instructions. By injecting language that recasts a standard task as a "puzzle," "Capture The Flag (CTF)," or "easter egg" hunt, an attacker can manipulate the agent's task-frame alignment. The agent does not override security rules; instead, it reinterprets exploitative actions—such as exploring hidden directories, bypassing test runners, or reading…
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
LLM-based personal agents are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) defense bypasses via declarative context reframing and implicit file provenance trust. Attackers can bypass agent safety filters by phrasing malicious instructions as declarative compliance alerts rather than imperative commands. Because agents are designed to report discrepancies as expected behavior, declarative framing bypasses intent-sensitive safety mechanisms. Additionally, attackers can exploit the agent's…
Source: arXiv
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models suffer from a severe linguistic fragility vulnerability where semantically equivalent but structurally complex adversarial instructions cause catastrophic failures in visual grounding and geometric reasoning. Attackers can reliably induce physical execution failures in robotic manipulation tasks by applying semantic-preserving linguistic variations, such as synonymous rephrasing, syntactic restructuring, or the addition of fine-grained compositional…
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
Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to system instruction leakage when extraction requests are framed as benign formatting, encoding, or structured-output tasks. While standard alignment and refusal mechanisms successfully block direct queries for system instructions, they fail when attackers request the instructions to be rendered in alternate representations (e.g., YAML, TOML, Base64, or system logs). The model's safety filters misinterpret the request as a harmless transformation or…
Source: arXiv