mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

AgentShield: Deception-based Compromise Detection for Tool-using LLM Agents

arXiv 2605.11026 ↗First posted 10 May 2026cs.CR cs.CLcited by 2

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

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Defenses against indirect prompt injection (IPI) in tool-using LLM agents share two structural weaknesses. First, they all attempt to prevent attacks rather than detect the compromises that slip through. Second, they have only been evaluated in English, leaving users of low-resource languages such as Kurdish and Arabic without tested protection. This paper addresses both gaps with AgentShield, a deception-based detection framework that places three layers of traps inside the agent's tool interface: fake tools, fake credentials, and allowlisted parameters. The same trap triggers serve as high-precision labels for a self-supervised classifier. An LLM agent that follows an attacker's hidden instruction almost always touches one of these traps, which gives both a real-time compromise signal and a zero-FP label for training a downstream detector without manual annotation. Across 176 cross-lingual attack prompts and four LLMs from three providers, and because modern LLMs already refuse most IPI attempts on their own (attack success rate <= 10%), AgentShield's job is to catch the attacks that do slip through. On commercial models, it catches 90.7%-100% of such successful attacks, with zero false alarms on 485 normal-use tests. It survives a systematic adaptive-attack evaluation with zero evasion on commercial models, and the self-supervised classifier transfers across models and languages without retraining.

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 10 May 2026.

Builds on

11 of 19 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025DRIFT: Dynamic Rule-Based Defense with Injection Isolation for Securing LLM Agents13 Jun
  2. 2025MELON: Provable Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks in AI Agents7 Feb
  3. 2024The Task Shield: Enforcing Task Alignment to Defend Against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents21 Dec
  4. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar

Other references · 7

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  2. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
  3. 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlightingcited by 267
  4. 2025DataSentinel: A Game-Theoretic Detection of Prompt Injection Attackscited by 143
  5. 2025The Attacker Moves Second: Stronger Adaptive Attacks Bypass Defenses Against Llm Jailbreaks and Prompt Injectionscited by 129
  6. 2025Securing AI Agents with Information-Flow Controlcited by 121
  7. 2025MAPS: A Multilingual Benchmark for Agent Performance and Securitycited by 7

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. 2025Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agents
  2. 2025IPIGuard: A Novel Tool Dependency Graph-Based Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents
  3. 2026Silent Failures in Agentic Security Evaluation: A Validated Harness for Tool-Call Mediation Under Indirect Prompt Injection
  4. 2026DriftNet: A Dual-Head Trajectory Transformer for Detecting and Localizing Prompt Injection in LLM Agents
  5. 2026Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection via Tool Result Parsing
  6. 2026Passing the Test You Trained On: Re-evaluating Prompt-Injection Detectors for LLM Agents
  7. 2026Universal Defenses for Tool-Integrated LLM Agents Against Adversarial Attacks
  8. 2026Your Agent is More Brittle Than You Think: Uncovering Indirect Injection Vulnerabilities in Agentic LLMs