mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Observable Channels, Not Just Storage: Evaluating Privacy Leakage in LLM Agent Pipelines

arXiv 2603.22751 ↗First posted 24 Mar 2026cs.CRcited by 4

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Privacy leakage in LLM agents is often studied through individual storage or execution components, such as memory modules, retrieval pipelines, or tool-mediated artifacts. However, these settings are typically analyzed in isolation, making it difficult to compare how private internal dependence becomes externally recoverable across heterogeneous agent pipelines. In this paper, we present CIPL (Channel Inversion for Privacy Leakage) as a unified channel-oriented measurement interface for evaluating privacy leakage in LLM agent pipelines. Rather than claiming a universally strongest attack recipe, CIPL provides a shared way to represent a target through its sensitive source, selection, assembly, execution, observation, and extraction stages, and to measure how internal exposure is transformed into attacker-recoverable leakage under a common protocol. Using memory-based, retrieval-mediated, and tool-mediated instantiations under this shared interface, we identify a distinct cross-target risk picture. Memory behaves as a near-saturated high-risk special case, while beyond-memory leakage exhibits a different regime: retrieval-mediated targets show frequent but often incomplete leakage, and tool-mediated targets are strongly shaped by the exposed observation surface and provider behavior. We further show that leakage is governed by channel conditions rather than by a universally dominant recipe: cleaned weak controls sharply suppress leakage, and semantic annotation reveals attacker-useful leakage beyond exact-match extraction. Together, these findings suggest that privacy risk in LLM agent pipelines is better understood through observable channels, not just storage components. More broadly, our results motivate channel-oriented privacy evaluation as a necessary complement to component-local or exact-only analyses.

Key facts. Cited by 4 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 15 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Mar 2026.

Builds on

15 of 24 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Breaking Agents: Compromising Autonomous LLM Agents Through Malfunction Amplification30 Jul
  2. 2024The Emerged Security and Privacy of LLM Agent: A Survey with Case Studies28 Jul
  3. 2024WIPI: A New Web Threat for LLM-Driven Web Agents26 Feb

Other references · 12

  1. 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Surveycited by 1,422
  2. 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,124
  3. 2024A Survey on the Memory Mechanism of Large Language Model based Agentscited by 622
  4. 2023Baseline Defenses for Adversarial Attacks Against Aligned Language Modelscited by 608
  5. 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 568
  6. 2024Automatic and Universal Prompt Injection Attacks against Large Language Modelscited by 112
  7. 2023Privacy-Preserving In-Context Learning with Differentially Private Few-Shot Generationcited by 94
  8. 2024Follow My Instruction and Spill the Beans: Scalable Data Extraction from Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systemscited by 76
  9. 2024Mitigating the Privacy Issues in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) via Pure Synthetic Datacited by 52
  10. 2024Privacy-Preserving Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Differential Privacycited by 38
  11. 2024Feedback-Guided Extraction of Knowledge Base from Retrieval-Augmented LLM Applicationscited by 36
  12. 2024Pirates of the RAG: Adaptively Attacking LLMs to Leak Knowledge Basescited by 17

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026CIPL: A Channel-Aware Framework for Recoverable Privacy Leakage in LLM Agents
  2. 2026AgentLeak: A Benchmark for Internal-Channel Privacy Leakage in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
  3. 2026Rethinking Side-Channel Analysis: Automated Discovery and Analysis of Side-Channel Leakage with LLM-Assisted Agents
  4. 2026PrivacyPeek: Auditing What LLM-Based Agents Acquire, Not Just What They Say
  5. 2026OCELOT: Inference-Leakage Budgets for Privacy-Preserving LLM Agents
  6. 2026AgentSecBench: Measuring Prompt Injection, Privacy Leakage, and Tool-Use Integrity in LLM Agents
  7. 2025Topology Matters: Measuring Memory Leakage in Multi-Agent LLMs
  8. 2025Unveiling Privacy Risks in LLM Agent Memory