mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AgentSecBench: Measuring Prompt Injection, Privacy Leakage, and Tool-Use Integrity in LLM Agents

arXiv 2605.26269 ↗First posted 25 May 2026cs.CRcited by 4

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

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

LLM agents process trusted instructions, retrieved records, and tool observations through a common generative channel. This conflates data flow with authority: an untrusted string can affect a secret-bearing response or an action proposal even when no application policy authorizes that influence. We introduce AgentSecBench as an empirical instantiation of a formal security framework for this problem. The framework defines three games-instruction-integrity, retrieval-confidentiality, and capability-integrity-under a common notion of intent-to-execution noninterference with permitted leakage. It represents an application policy as a projection onto authorized observations and capabilities, distinguishes prompt annotations from enforcing projections, and measures both adversarial advantage and whether a defense closes the relevant model-visible channel before generation. The exact-marker experiments are intentionally one observable instantiation of the games rather than a complete semantic security claim: they test disclosure and forbidden-action distinguishers with unambiguous ground truth. We evaluate six defense classes with Qwen3-0.6B and Qwen3-1.7B on paired adversarial and benign-control executions. The measurements show when risk reduction follows channel closure and when a model-visible adversarial capability remains exploitable. The result is a security-oriented evaluation method: prompt text can describe a boundary, whereas provenance projection, capability restriction, and output validation can enforce one.

Key facts. Cited by 4 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 14 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 May 2026.

Builds on

14 of 22 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar

Other references · 13

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
  3. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  4. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
  5. 2020Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answeringcited by 3,779
  6. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
  7. 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,144
  8. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
  9. 2022Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Modelscited by 755
  10. 2019Universal Adversarial Triggers for Attacking and Analyzing NLPcited by 709
  11. 2023Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defensescited by 328
  12. 2022Deduplicating Training Data Mitigates Privacy Risks in Language Modelscited by 309
1 more
  1. 2023Tensor Trust: Interpretable Prompt Injection Attacks from an Online Gamecited by 135

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Silent Failures in Agentic Security Evaluation: A Validated Harness for Tool-Call Mediation Under Indirect Prompt Injection
  2. 2026Recognition Without Enforcement: Configuration-Dependent Failures in LLM Agent Instruction Arbitration and External Control
  3. 2026You Told Me to Do It: Measuring Instructional Text-induced Private Data Leakage in LLM Agents
  4. 2025Simple Prompt Injection Attacks Can Leak Personal Data Observed by LLM Agents During Task Execution
  5. 2026Securing LLM Agents Need Intent-to-Execution Integrity
  6. 2024AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents
  7. 2026The Claws in Plain Sight: Unauthorized Context Disclosure through LLM Agent Tool Calls
  8. 2026SafeClawBench: Separating Semantic, Audit-Evidence, and Sandbox Harm in Tool-Using LLM Agents