mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

"Your AI, My Shell": Demystifying Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic AI Coding Editors

arXiv 2509.22040 ↗First posted 26 Sep 2025cs.CR cs.SEcited by 15

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic AI coding editors driven by large language models have recently become more popular due to their ability to improve developer productivity during software development. Modern editors such as Cursor are designed not just for code completion, but also with more system privileges for complex coding tasks (e.g., run commands in the terminal, access development environments, and interact with external systems). While this brings us closer to the "fully automated programming" dream, it also raises new security concerns. In this study, we present the first empirical analysis of prompt injection attacks targeting these high-privilege agentic AI coding editors. We show how attackers can remotely exploit these systems by poisoning external development resources with malicious instructions, effectively hijacking AI agents to run malicious commands, turning "your AI" into "attacker's shell". To perform this analysis, we implement AIShellJack, an automated testing framework for assessing prompt injection vulnerabilities in agentic AI coding editors. AIShellJack contains 314 unique attack payloads that cover 70 techniques from the MITRE ATT&CK framework. Using AIShellJack, we conduct a large-scale evaluation on GitHub Copilot and Cursor, and our evaluation results show that attack success rates can reach as high as 84% for executing malicious commands. Moreover, these attacks are proven effective across a wide range of objectives, ranging from initial access and system discovery to credential theft and data exfiltration.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 12 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2025.

Builds on

12 of 45 references.

References · 12

  1. 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 431
  2. 2023Benchmarking and Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Modelscited by 264
  3. 2022Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?cited by 192
  4. 2024Security and Privacy Challenges of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 186
  5. 2025DataSentinel: A Game-Theoretic Detection of Prompt Injection Attackscited by 143
  6. 2024PLeak: Prompt Leaking Attacks against Large Language Model Applicationscited by 127
  7. 2024Attention Tracker: Detecting Prompt Injection Attacks in LLMscited by 95
  8. 2022Lost at C: A User Study on the Security Implications of Large Language Model Code Assistantscited by 91
  9. 2024Using AI Assistants in Software Development: A Qualitative Study on Security Practices and Concernscited by 28
  10. 2023Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot Generated Code -- A Targeted Replication Studycited by 26
  11. 2023Your Code Secret Belongs to Me: Neural Code Completion Tools Can Memorize Hard-Coded Credentialscited by 17
  12. 2025"My productivity is boosted, but ..." Demystifying Users' Perception on AI Coding Assistantscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 15.

15 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2026Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic Coding Assistants: A Systematic Analysis of Vulnerabilities in Skills, Tools, and Protocol Ecosystemscited by 31
  2. 2026The Landscape of Prompt Injection Threats in LLM Agents: From Taxonomy to Analysiscited by 30
  3. 2026Your Agent, Their Asset: A Real-World Safety Analysis of OpenClawcited by 20
  4. 2026How Vulnerable Are AI Agents to Indirect Prompt Injections? Insights from a Large-Scale Public Competitioncited by 17
  5. 2026Toward Secure LLM Agents: Threat Surfaces, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluationcited by 7
  6. 2026A Deterministic Control Plane for LLM Coding Agentscited by 3
  7. 2026How Do Practitioners Build SE Agents? Insights from a Mixed-Methods Studycited by 2
  8. 2026Domain-Conditioned Safety in Frontier Computer-Using Agents: A 793-Episode Browser Benchmark, a Coding-Domain Cross-Reference, and a Reproducibility Audit of Recent Red-Teamingcited by 1
  9. 2026Rule Taxonomy and Evolution in AI IDEs: A Mining and Survey Studycited by 1
  10. 2026One Goal, Many Commands: Characterizing Denylist Fragility in AI Agentscited by 1
  11. 2026IssueTrojanBench: Benchmarking AI Coding Agents Against Malicious Issue Requestscited by 1
  12. 2026MOSAIC: Knowledge-Guided CLI Command Composition Attack in LLM Coding Agentscited by 0
3 more
  1. 2026A Blind Trust, the Bloody Thrust: When Attacker-Controlled Hook Updates Steer AI Agent Harnesses towards Malicious Behaviorscited by 0
  2. 2026Authority Is Not a String: A Capability-Scoped Harness for Prompt-Injection-Resistant Coding Agentscited by 0
  3. 2026Reflections on Trusting Trust, Revisited: Contaminating Self-Modifying AI Coding Agents with Poisoned Benchmarkscited by 0

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026How Agentic AI Coding Assistants Become the Attacker's Shell ↗
  2. 2025Breaking the Code: Security Assessment of AI Code Agents Through Systematic Jailbreaking Attacks
  3. 2025Red-Teaming Coding Agents from a Tool-Invocation Perspective: An Empirical Security Assessment
  4. 2026The Balkanization of Execution-Security Research for AI Coding Agents: Isolation, Access Control, and Time-of-Check-to-Time-of-Use Vulnerabilities
  5. 2026Workspace Topology as an Attack Vector in Agentic Coding Assistants
  6. 2026Towards a Risk Assessment of Malicious Skill Files in Coding Agents
  7. 2026MalSkillBench: A Runtime-Verified Benchmark of Malicious Agent Skills
  8. 2026SoK: The Attack Surface of Agentic AI - Tools and Autonomy