Cross-Session Threats in AI Agents: Benchmark, Evaluation, and Algorithms
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
AI-agent guardrails are memoryless: each message is judged in isolation, so an adversary who spreads a single attack across dozens of sessions slips past every session-bound detector because only the aggregate carries the payload. We make three contributions to cross-session threat detection. (1) Dataset. CSTM-Bench is 26 executable attack taxonomies classified by kill-chain stage and cross-session operation (accumulate, compose, launder, injectonreader), each bound to one of seven identity anchors that ground-truth "violation" as a policy predicate, plus matched Benign-pristine and Benign-hard confounders. Released on Hugging Face as intrinsec-ai/cstm-bench with two 54-scenario splits: dilution (compositional) and crosssession (12 isolation-invisible scenarios produced by a closed-loop rewriter that softens surface phrasing while preserving cross-session artefacts). (2) Measurement. Framing cross-session detection as an information bottleneck to a downstream correlator LLM, we find that a session-bound judge and a Full-Log Correlator concatenating every prompt into one long-context call both lose roughly half their attack recall moving from dilution to crosssession, well inside any frontier context window. Scope: 54 scenarios per shard, one correlator family (Anthropic Claude), no prompt optimisation; we release it to motivate larger, multi-provider datasets. (3) Algorithm and metric. A bounded-memory Coreset Memory Reader retaining highest-signal fragments at K=50 is the only reader whose recall survives both shards. Because ranker reshuffles break KV-cache prefix reuse, we promote CSRprefix (ordered prefix stability, LLM-free) to a first-class metric and fuse it with detection into CSTM = 0.7 F1(CSDA@action, precision) + 0.3 CSRprefix, benchmarking rankers on a single Pareto of recall versus serving stability.
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 6 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Apr 2026.
Builds on
6 of 31 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 5
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
- 2024Great, Now Write an Article About That: The Crescendo Multi-Turn LLM Jailbreak Attackcited by 364
- 2024Here Comes The AI Worm: Unleashing Zero-click Worms that Target GenAI-Powered Applicationscited by 58
- 2024Breach By A Thousand Leaks: Unsafe Information Leakage in `Safe' AI Responsescited by 18
- 2024FRACTURED-SORRY-Bench: Framework for Revealing Attacks in Conversational Turns Undermining Refusal Efficacy and Defenses over SORRY-Bench (Automated Multi-shot Jailbreaks)cited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026ChannelGuard: Safe Models Do Not Compose into Safe Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026On the Effectiveness of Kernel-Level Evidence for Agent Security
- 2026Behind the Refusal: Determining Guardrail Activation via Behavioral Monitoring
- 2026What If Prompt Injection Never Left? Rethinking Agent Security through Cross-Session Stored Prompt Injection
- 2026A Systematic Survey of Security Threats and Defenses in LLM-Based AI Agents: A Layered Attack Surface Framework
- 2026Connecting the Dots in Agentic AI Security: A Cross-Dimensional Threat Taxonomy, Evaluation Maturity, and Open Challenges
- 2025Temporal Attack Pattern Detection in Multi-Agent AI Workflows: An Open Framework for Training Trace-Based Security Models
- 2026Agent-Fence: Mapping Security Vulnerabilities Across Deep Research Agents