mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Agent Privilege Separation in OpenClaw: A Structural Defense Against Prompt Injection

arXiv 2603.13424 ↗First posted 13 Mar 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 2

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

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Prompt injection remains one of the most practical attack vectors against LLM-integrated applications. We replicate the Microsoft LLMail-Inject benchmark (Greshake et al., 2024) against current generation models running inside OpenClaw, an open source multitool agent platform. Our proposed defense combines two mechanisms: agent isolation, implemented as a privilege separated two-agent pipeline with tool partitioning, and JSON formatting, which produces structured output that strips persuasive framing before the action agent processes it. We run four experiments on the same 649 attacks that succeeded against our single-agent baseline. The full pipeline achieves 0 percent attack success rate (ASR) on the evaluated benchmark. Agent isolation alone achieves 0.31 percent ASR, approximately 323 times lower than the baseline. JSON formatting alone achieves 14.18 percent ASR, about 7.1 times lower. Our ablation study confirms that agent isolation is the dominant mechanism. JSON formatting provides additional hardening but is not sufficient on its own. The defense is structural: the action agent never receives raw injection content regardless of model behavior on any individual input.

Key facts. Cited by 2 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 11 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Mar 2026.

Builds on

11 of 19 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control16 Apr

Other references · 10

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  2. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,182
  3. 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
  4. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
  5. 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 832
  6. 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 605
  7. 2024The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructionscited by 493
  8. 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlightingcited by 267
  9. 2024System-Level Defense against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks: An Information Flow Control Perspectivecited by 96
  10. 2025PromptShield: Deployable Detection for Prompt Injection Attackscited by 50

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Taming OpenClaw: Security Analysis and Mitigation of Autonomous LLM Agent Threats
  2. 2025A Multi-Agent LLM Defense Pipeline Against Prompt Injection Attacks
  3. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents
  4. 2026Security Engineering of OpenClaw: Analyzing Attack Surface Expansion and Trust-Boundary Violations
  5. 2026AgentVisor: Defending LLM Agents Against Prompt Injection via Semantic Virtualization
  6. 2026Adaptive Evaluation of Out-of-Band Defenses Against Prompt Injection in LLM Agents
  7. 2026SecureClaw: Clawing Back Control of LLM Agents
  8. 2026The Framing Gap: Indirect Prompt-Injection Exfiltration Defeats Surface-Level Defenses in Tool-Using Agents