# LogJack: Indirect Prompt Injection Through Cloud Logs Against LLM Debugging Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15368 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.15368/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security.
- Builds on 6 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 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, 6 of 6)

- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02644/) (2024)
- [Benchmarking and Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.14197/) (2023)
- [AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.13352/) (2024)
- [Design Patterns for Securing LLM Agents against Prompt Injections](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08837/) (2025)
- [Are AI-assisted Development Tools Immune to Prompt Injection?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.21642/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM debugging agents that consume cloud logs and execute remediation commands are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection through log content. We present LogJack, a benchmark of 42 payloads across 5 cloud log categories, and evaluate 8 foundation models under 3 prompt conditions with 5 independent trials each (n = 160 per model per condition on 32 attack payloads). Under the active condition, verbatim command execution rates range from 0% (Claude Sonnet 4.6) to 86.2% (Llama 3.3 70B). Passive instructions ("do not execute fixes") reduce most models to 0% but Llama still executes at 30.0%. Remote code execution via curl | bash succeeds on 6 of 8 models. Guardrails from AWS, GCP, and Azure largely fail to detect log-embedded injections-Azure Prompt Shield detected only the most obvious payload (1/32), while GCP Model Armor detected none-though they detect identical payloads in isolation. We also observe a novel "sanitize and execute" behavior where a model detects and removes an obvious malicious component but still executes the remaining injected command. Benchmark and harness available at github.com/HarshShah1997/logjack.