mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Ghost in the Agent: Redefining Information Flow Tracking for LLM Agents

arXiv 2604.23374 ↗First posted 25 Apr 2026cs.CRcited by 14

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Autonomous Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed to conduct complex tasks by interacting with external tools, APIs, and memory stores. However, processing untrusted external data exposes these agents to severe security threats, such as indirect prompt injection and unauthorized tool execution. Securing these systems requires effective information flow tracking. Yet, traditional taint analysis that is designed for program memory states fundamentally fails when applied to LLMs, where data propagation is governed by probabilistic natural language reasoning. In this paper, we present NeuroTaint, the first comprehensive taint tracking framework tailored for the unique information flow characteristics of LLM agents. Our key insight is that taint propagation in LLM agents must be understood not only as explicit content transfer, but also as semantic transformation, causal influence on decisions, and cross-session persistence through memory. NeuroTaint therefore audits execution traces offline to reconstruct provenance from untrusted sources to privileged sinks using semantic evidence, causal reasoning, and persistent context tracking, rather than relying on exact string matches or pre-defined source-sink paths alone. Extensive evaluation using TaintBench, our 400-scenario benchmark spanning 20 real-world agent frameworks, shows that NeuroTaint substantially outperforms FIDES, an information-flow-control (IFC)-style baseline for LLM agents, in source-sink propagation detection. We further show that NeuroTaint remains effective on established agent-security benchmarks, including InjecAgent and ToolEmu, while operating offline with modest additional auditing cost.

Key facts. Cited by 14 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 17 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Apr 2026.

Builds on

17 of 37 references.

Closest ancestors · 6

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
  2. 2025Memory Injection Attacks on LLM Agents via Query-Only Interaction5 Mar
  3. 2025RTBAS: Defending LLM Agents Against Prompt Injection and Privacy Leakage13 Feb
  4. 2024The Task Shield: Enforcing Task Alignment to Defend Against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents21 Dec
  5. 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents3 Oct
  6. 2024AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases17 Jul

Other references · 11

  1. 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 760
  2. 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 568
  3. 2024The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructionscited by 441
  4. 2024StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queriescited by 325
  5. 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlightingcited by 233
  6. 2024SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimizationcited by 179
  7. 2023Abusing Images and Sounds for Indirect Instruction Injection in Multi-Modal LLMscited by 117
  8. 2025Securing AI Agents with Information-Flow Controlcited by 108
  9. 2023Maatphor: Automated Variant Analysis for Prompt Injection Attackscited by 12
  10. 2019Neutaint: Efficient Dynamic Taint Analysis with Neural Networkscited by 7
  11. 2026AttackEval: A Systematic Empirical Study of Prompt Injection Attack Effectiveness Against Large Language Modelscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 14.

14 papers.

Sort:

By area:

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Toward Secure LLM Agents: Threat Surfaces, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluation
  2. 2024Permissive Information-Flow Analysis for Large Language Models
  3. 2026You Told Me to Do It: Measuring Instructional Text-induced Private Data Leakage in LLM Agents
  4. 2025MemoryGraft: Persistent Compromise of LLM Agents via Poisoned Experience Retrieval
  5. 2026GIF: Locally Sound Geometric Information Flow Control for LLMs
  6. 2026The LLMbda Calculus: AI Agents, Conversations, and Information Flow
  7. 2026TraceGrant: A Contract-Governed Security Framework for the Task-Effect Lifecycle of Networked LLM Agents
  8. 2026SPA: Securing Persistent LLM Agents Across Queries with Plan-First Information-Flow Control