# Protecting Context and Prompts: Deterministic Security for Non-Deterministic AI

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.10481 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.10481/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security.
- Builds on 14 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM safety and security / [Prompt injection and agent security](https://mlsanity.com/safety/prompt-injection-and-agent-security/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02483/) (2023)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17760/) (2023)
- [Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09527/) (2022)
- [Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learned](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.07858/) (2022)
- [NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Rails](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10501/) (2023)
- [SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05451/) (2024)
- [Prompt Infection: LLM-to-LLM Prompt Injection within Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07283/) (2024)
- [Attention Tracker: Detecting Prompt Injection Attacks in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.00348/) (2024)
- [Lessons from Defending Gemini Against Indirect Prompt Injections](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14534/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Toward Self-Evolution-Ready Workflow Harnesses: A Reversible Migration Path and Convertibility Taxonomy for Expert LLM Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.24598/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Model (LLM) applications are vulnerable to prompt injection and context manipulation attacks that traditional security models cannot prevent. We introduce two novel primitives--authenticated prompts and authenticated context--that provide cryptographically verifiable provenance across LLM workflows. Authenticated prompts enable self-contained lineage verification, while authenticated context uses tamper-evident hash chains to ensure integrity of dynamic inputs. Building on these primitives, we formalize a policy algebra with four proven theorems providing protocol-level Byzantine resistance--even adversarial agents cannot violate organizational policies. Five complementary defenses--from lightweight resource controls to LLM-based semantic validation--deliver layered, preventative security with formal guarantees. Evaluation against representative attacks spanning 6 exhaustive categories achieves 100% detection with zero false positives and nominal overhead. We demonstrate the first approach combining cryptographically enforced prompt lineage, tamper-evident context, and provable policy reasoning--shifting LLM security from reactive detection to preventative guarantees.