You Told Me to Do It: Measuring Instructional Text-induced Private Data Leakage in LLM Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
High-privilege LLM agents that autonomously process external documentation are increasingly trusted to automate tasks by reading and executing project instructions, yet they are granted terminal access, filesystem control, and outbound network connectivity with minimal security oversight. We identify and systematically measure a fundamental vulnerability in this trust model, which we term the Trusted Executor Dilemma: agents execute documentation-embedded instructions, including adversarial ones, at high rates because they cannot distinguish malicious directives from legitimate setup guidance. This vulnerability is a structural consequence of the instruction-following design paradigm, not an implementation bug. To structure our measurement, we formalize a three-dimensional taxonomy covering linguistic disguise, structural obfuscation, and semantic abstraction, and construct ReadSecBench, a benchmark of 500 real-world README files enabling reproducible evaluation. Experiments on the commercially deployed computer-use agent show end-to-end exfiltration success rates up to 85%, consistent across five programming languages and three injection positions. Cross-model evaluation on four LLM families in a simulation environment confirms that semantic compliance with injected instructions is consistent across model families. A 15-participant user study yields a 0% detection rate across all participants, and evaluation of 12 rule-based and 6 LLM-based defenses shows neither category achieves reliable detection without unacceptable false-positive rates. Together, these results quantify a persistent Semantic-Safety Gap between agents' functional compliance and their security awareness, establishing that documentation-embedded instruction injection is a persistent and currently unmitigated threat to high-privilege LLM agent deployments.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 39 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Mar 2026.
Builds on
39 of 53 references.
Closest ancestors · 12
Same direction, newest first
- 2025A Vision for Access Control in LLM-based Agent Systems13 Oct
- 2025AgentAuditor: Human-Level Safety and Security Evaluation for LLM Agents31 May
- 2025AdInject: Real-World Black-Box Attacks on Web Agents via Advertising Delivery27 May
- 2025MedSentry: Understanding and Mitigating Safety Risks in Medical LLM Multi-Agent Systems27 May
- 2025The Obvious Invisible Threat: LLM-Powered GUI Agents' Vulnerability to Fine-Print Injections15 Apr
- 2025A Survey on Trustworthy LLM Agents: Threats and Countermeasures12 Mar
- 2024Attacking Vision-Language Computer Agents via Pop-ups4 Nov
- 2024EIA: Environmental Injection Attack on Generalist Web Agents for Privacy Leakage17 Sep
- 2024AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents19 Jun
- 2024Watch Out for Your Agents! Investigating Backdoor Threats to LLM-Based Agents17 Feb
- 2024A Trembling House of Cards? Mapping Adversarial Attacks against Language Agents15 Feb
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep
Other references · 27
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,330
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
- 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,084
- 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agentscited by 956
- 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 760
- 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 347
- 2023Can LLMs Keep a Secret? Testing Privacy Implications of Language Models via Contextual Integrity Theorycited by 218
- 2024Agent Q: Advanced Reasoning and Learning for Autonomous AI Agentscited by 201
15 more
- 2023Image Hijacks: Adversarial Images can Control Generative Models at Runtimecited by 165
- 2024The Landscape of Emerging AI Agent Architectures for Reasoning, Planning, and Tool Calling: A Surveycited by 164
- 2024PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Actioncited by 161
- 2024Exploring Large Language Model based Intelligent Agents: Definitions, Methods, and Prospectscited by 130
- 2021Hidden Backdoors in Human-Centric Language Modelscited by 83
- 2020Backstabber's Knife Collection: A Review of Open Source Software Supply Chain Attackscited by 57
- 2022Taxonomy of Attacks on Open-Source Software Supply Chainscited by 57
- 2023Tricking LLMs into Disobedience: Formalizing, Analyzing, and Detecting Jailbreakscited by 45
- 2024HAICOSYSTEM: An Ecosystem for Sandboxing Safety Risks in Human-AI Interactionscited by 42
- 2019Small World with High Risks: A Study of Security Threats in the npm Ecosystemcited by 36
- 2025OS-Kairos: Adaptive Interaction for MLLM-Powered GUI Agentscited by 25
- 2024Malla: Demystifying Real-world Large Language Model Integrated Malicious Servicescited by 24
- 2024Reasoning Capacity in Multi-Agent Systems: Limitations, Challenges and Human-Centered Solutionscited by 15
- 2024RACONTEUR: A Knowledgeable, Insightful, and Portable LLM-Powered Shell Command Explainercited by 9
- 2025Evaluating the efficacy of LLM Safety Solutions : The Palit Benchmark Datasetcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026Temporary Authority, Permanent Effects: Commit-Time Authorization for LLM Agentscited by 17
- 2026Beyond the Payload: How User Invocation Shapes Coding Agent Vulnerability to Repository Poisoningcited by 0
- 2026Do AI Coding Assistants Check Before They Install? A Pre-Registered Demand-Side Audit of Trust Signals in the Research Software Supply Chaincited by 0
- 2026Do AI Coding Assistants Check Before They Install? A Pre-Registered Demand-Side Audit of Trust Signals in the Research Software Supply Chain7 Sep 2026
- 2026Beyond the Payload: How User Invocation Shapes Coding Agent Vulnerability to Repository Poisoning31 Aug 2026
- 2026Temporary Authority, Permanent Effects: Commit-Time Authorization for LLM Agents11 Jul 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026AgentSecBench: Measuring Prompt Injection, Privacy Leakage, and Tool-Use Integrity in LLM Agents
- 2026Evaluation and Hardening of LLM System Instructions Against Extraction via Encoding Attacks
- 2026Securing LLM Agents Need Intent-to-Execution Integrity
- 2026Toward Secure LLM Agents: Threat Surfaces, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluation
- 2024Whispers in the Machine: Confidentiality in Agentic Systems
- 2026Can Agents Trust Their Skills? Uncovering Unsafe Chains of Trust in Skill-Based LLM Agents
- 2026Recognition Without Enforcement: Configuration-Dependent Failures in LLM Agent Instruction Arbitration and External Control
- 2026Skill-Inject: Measuring Agent Vulnerability to Skill File Attacks