# Poisoning the Watchtower: Prompt Injection Attacks Against LLM-Augmented Security Operations Through Adversarial Log Content

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24421 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.24421/

## 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 10 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 May 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)

- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02483/) (2023)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09527/) (2022)
- ["Do Anything Now": Characterizing and Evaluating In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03825/) (2023)
- [Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12815/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as analyst assistants in security operations centers (SOCs), where they ingest log and alert data to produce triage labels, incident summaries, or remediation advice. We study a structural failure mode of this design: many log fields are attacker controlled. User agents, URLs, payloads, DNS queries, and attempted usernames can therefore carry instructions to the model alongside evidence of the intrusion. We call this setting log-substrate prompt injection. We introduce a four-class taxonomy of log-substrate attacks: direct override (S1), persona hijack (S2), context manipulation (S3), and obfuscated payloads (S4). We evaluate 48 strategy-defense-task combinations using textttgpt-4o-mini as the analyst. Three findings stand out. First, direct overrides are ineffective in our setting: all S1 classification attacks achieve 0% suppression. In contrast, persona hijacks suppress 68% of malicious logs under a naive classifier and remain effective under stronger defenses. Second, summarization is the highest-risk task: context manipulation reaches 96% injection success without defenses and 38% even with constrained output. Third, defenses reduce but do not eliminate the attack surface: average injection success falls from 26.6% under naive prompting to 11.8% under our strongest defense. We also compare empirical results to a deterministic mock analyst and find that simulation substantially mispredicts current model behavior, especially for direct overrides. These results suggest that SOC copilots should treat raw log content as adversarial input rather than ordinary analyst context.