mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

LivePI: More Realistic Benchmarking of Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection

arXiv 2605.17986 ↗First posted 18 May 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 3

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

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

AI agents such as OpenClaw are increasingly deployed in local workflows with access to external tools. This creates indirect prompt-injection (IPI) risk: an agent may execute harmful instructions embedded in untrusted inputs such as email, downloaded files, webpages, repositories, or group-chat messages. Existing evaluations are often small, purely simulated, or focused on a narrow set of channels. We introduce LivePI (Live Prompt Injection), a structured benchmark for IPI risk in a production-like but test-controlled environment. LivePI covers seven input surfaces, twelve attack/rendering families, and five malicious goals, including protected-information exfiltration, unauthorized security-control changes, unsafe code retrieval or execution, inbox-summary exfiltration, and cryptocurrency transfer. We run LivePI on a real virtual machine with live but test-controlled email, chat, web, local-file, repository, and wallet interfaces. Across GPT-5.3-Codex, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5, and GLM-5, total attack success rates range from 10.7% to 29.6%. Group-chat injection is uniformly successful across the evaluated backbones in our deployment, and repository-link attacks produce high-severity failures despite a small denominator. We also evaluate a two-layer defense consisting of prompt-level filtering and pre-execution tool-call authorization. In the GPT-5.3-Codex setting, the defense intercepts all tested malicious-goal completions in LivePI before execution while preserving benign utility on PinchBench-derived workloads.

Key facts. Cited by 3 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 33 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 May 2026.

Builds on

33 of 40 references.

Closest ancestors · 18

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026ClawSafety: "Safe" LLMs, Unsafe Agents1 Apr
  2. 2026Trojan's Whisper: Stealthy Manipulation of OpenClaw through Injected Bootstrapped Guidance20 Mar
  3. 2026ClawTrap: A MITM-Based Red-Teaming Framework for Real-World OpenClaw Security Evaluation19 Mar
  4. 2026Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw13 Mar
  5. 2026OpenClaw PRISM: A Zero-Fork, Defense-in-Depth Runtime Security Layer for Tool-Augmented LLM Agents12 Mar
  6. 2026Agents of Chaos23 Feb
  7. 2026From Assistant to Double Agent: Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks on OpenClaw for Personalized Local AI Agent9 Feb
  8. 2025Security Challenges in AI Agent Deployment: Insights from a Large Scale Public Competition28 Jul
  9. 2025OpenAgentSafety: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Real-World AI Agent Safety8 Jul
  10. 2025OS-Harm: A Benchmark for Measuring Safety of Computer Use Agents17 Jun
  11. 2025WASP: Benchmarking Web Agent Security Against Prompt Injection Attacks22 Apr
  12. 2025MELON: Provable Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks in AI Agents7 Feb
6 more
  1. 2024The Task Shield: Enforcing Task Alignment to Defend Against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents21 Dec
  2. 2024Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents19 Dec
  3. 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents11 Oct
  4. 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents3 Oct
  5. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar
  6. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep

Other references · 15

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  2. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
  3. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
  4. 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,423
  5. 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,207
  6. 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 1,026
  7. 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 897
  8. 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 605
  9. 2024The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructionscited by 493
  10. 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 365
  11. 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlightingcited by 267
  12. 2024System-Level Defense against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks: An Information Flow Control Perspectivecited by 96
3 more
  1. 2026Don't Let the Claw Grip Your Hand: A Security Analysis and Defense Framework for OpenClawcited by 29
  2. 2026ClawKeeper: Comprehensive Safety Protection for OpenClaw Agents Through Skills, Plugins, and Watcherscited by 20
  3. 2026Mind Your HEARTBEAT! Claw Background Execution Inherently Enables Silent Memory Pollutioncited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Indirect Prompt Injections: Are Firewalls All You Need, or Stronger Benchmarks?
  2. 2026Your Agent, Their Asset: A Real-World Safety Analysis of OpenClaw
  3. 2026Agent Privilege Separation in OpenClaw: A Structural Defense Against Prompt Injection
  4. 2025VPI-Bench: Visual Prompt Injection Attacks for Computer-Use Agents
  5. 2026Silent Failures in Agentic Security Evaluation: A Validated Harness for Tool-Call Mediation Under Indirect Prompt Injection
  6. 2026APEX-Harm: Evaluating Agent Safety in Shared Professional Workspaces
  7. 2026Your Agent is More Brittle Than You Think: Uncovering Indirect Injection Vulnerabilities in Agentic LLMs
  8. 2026The Framing Gap: Indirect Prompt-Injection Exfiltration Defeats Surface-Level Defenses in Tool-Using Agents