mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

STAC: When Innocent Tools Form Dangerous Chains for LLM Agents

arXiv 2509.25624 ↗First posted 30 Sep 2025cs.CR cs.AI cs.CLcited by 8

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

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

As LLMs advance into autonomous agents with tool-use capabilities, they introduce security challenges that extend beyond traditional content-based LLM safety concerns. This paper introduces Sequential Tool Attack Chaining (STAC), a novel multi-turn attack framework that exploits agent tool use. STAC chains together tool calls that each appear harmless in isolation but, when combined, collectively enable harmful operations that only become apparent at the final execution step. At the core of STAC is an automated, closed-loop pipeline that synthesizes executable multi-step tool chains, validates them through in-environment execution, and reverse-engineers stealthy multi-turn prompts that reliably induce agents to execute the verified malicious sequence. Using this framework, we generate and systematically evaluate 483 STAC cases, featuring 1,352 sets of user-agent-environment interactions and spanning diverse domains, tasks, agent types, and 10 failure modes. Our evaluations show that state-of-the-art LLM agents are highly vulnerable to STAC, with an average final attack success rate (ASR) of 91.2% -- exceeding 90% for all but one of the eight agents evaluated. We further perform defense analysis and find that existing prompt-based defenses provide limited protection. To address this gap, we propose a new reasoning-driven defense prompt that achieves the strongest initial-turn protection, cutting ASR by up to 28.8%; however, this advantage erodes sharply under adaptive attacks, and an experience-based defense (ToolShield) proves more durable over sustained multi-turn interactions. These results highlight a crucial gap: defending tool-enabled agents requires reasoning over entire action sequences and their cumulative effects, rather than evaluating isolated prompts or responses.

Key facts. Cited by 8 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 29 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2025.

Builds on

29 of 69 references.

Closest ancestors · 14

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Attractive Metadata Attack: Inducing LLM Agents to Invoke Malicious Tools4 Aug
  2. 2025OpenAgentSafety: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Real-World AI Agent Safety8 Jul
  3. 2025SHADE-Arena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in LLM Agents17 Jun
  4. 2025X-Teaming: Multi-Turn Jailbreaks and Defenses with Adaptive Multi-Agents15 Apr
  5. 2025Strategize Globally, Adapt Locally: A Multi-Turn Red Teaming Agent with Dual-Level Learning2 Apr
  6. 2025Multi-Agent Systems Execute Arbitrary Malicious Code15 Mar
  7. 2025SafeArena: Evaluating the Safety of Autonomous Web Agents6 Mar
  8. 2025Adaptive Attacks Break Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Agents27 Feb
  9. 2025DemonAgent: Dynamically Encrypted Multi-Backdoor Implantation Attack on LLM-based Agent18 Feb
  10. 2024Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents19 Dec
  11. 2024RedCode: Risky Code Execution and Generation Benchmark for Code Agents12 Nov
  12. 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents11 Oct
2 more
  1. 2024AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents19 Jun
  2. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep

Other references · 15

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIscited by 1,947
  3. 2024How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMscited by 573
  4. 2024Great, Now Write an Article About That: The Crescendo Multi-Turn LLM Jailbreak Attackcited by 390
  5. 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlightingcited by 267
  6. 2024PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Actioncited by 171
  7. 2024Steering Language Model Refusal with Sparse Autoencoderscited by 95
  8. 2024Chain of Attack: a Semantic-Driven Contextual Multi-Turn attacker for LLMcited by 77
  9. 2024SelfDefend: LLMs Can Defend Themselves against Jailbreaking in a Practical Mannercited by 63
  10. 2025Magistralcited by 60
  11. 2024HAICOSYSTEM: An Ecosystem for Sandboxing Safety Risks in Human-AI Interactionscited by 44
  12. 2025MTSA: Multi-turn Safety Alignment for LLMs through Multi-round Red-teamingcited by 32
3 more
  1. 2023DB-GPT: Empowering Database Interactions with Private Large Language Modelscited by 27
  2. 2025Steering Dialogue Dynamics for Robustness against Multi-turn Jailbreaking Attackscited by 20
  3. 2024SafetyAnalyst: Interpretable, Transparent, and Steerable Safety Moderation for AI Behaviorcited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 8.

8 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026ChainFuzzer: Greybox Fuzzing for Workflow-Level Multi-Tool Vulnerabilities in LLM Agents
  2. 2026Taming OpenClaw: Security Analysis and Mitigation of Autonomous LLM Agent Threats
  3. 2025Les Dissonances: Cross-Tool Harvesting and Polluting in Pool-of-Tools Empowered LLM Agents
  4. 2026MalTool: Malicious Tool Attacks on LLM Agents
  5. 2026Unsafer in Many Turns: Benchmarking and Defending Multi-Turn Safety Risks in Tool-Using Agents
  6. 2026OpenClaw PRISM: A Zero-Fork, Defense-in-Depth Runtime Security Layer for Tool-Augmented LLM Agents
  7. 2026ToolFence: Fine-Grained Authorization for Secure Tool-Using LLM Agents
  8. 2026SafeClawBench: Separating Semantic, Audit-Evidence, and Sandbox Harm in Tool-Using LLM Agents