# Agents That Know Too Much: A Data-Centric Survey of Privacy in LLM Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.26627 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.26627/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 75 of its 113 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 75)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.07805/) (2020)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [Machine Unlearning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.03817/) (2019)
- [Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15817/) (2023)
- [TOFU: A Task of Fictitious Unlearning for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06121/) (2024)
- [AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.09024/) (2024)
- [Scalable Extraction of Training Data from (Production) Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17035/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Can Be Strong Differentially Private Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.05679/) (2021)
- [Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02644/) (2024)
- [Defeating Prompt Injections by Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18813/) (2025)
- [Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.00539/) (2023)
- [Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlighting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14720/) (2024)
- [Spider 2.0: Evaluating Language Models on Real-World Enterprise Text-to-SQL Workflows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.07763/) (2024)
- [Can LLMs Keep a Secret? Testing Privacy Implications of Language Models via Contextual Integrity Theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17884/) (2023)
- [Data Interpreter: An LLM Agent For Data Science](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18679/) (2024)
- [AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18666/) (2025)
- [Are Large Pre-Trained Language Models Leaking Your Personal Information?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.12628/) (2022)
- [PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Action](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.00138/) (2024)
- [The Good and The Bad: Exploring Privacy Issues in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16893/) (2024)
- [ST-WebAgentBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Safety and Trustworthiness in Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06703/) (2024)
- [The Emerged Security and Privacy of LLM Agent: A Survey with Case Studies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.19354/) (2024)
- [IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04960/) (2024)
- [LlamaFirewall: An open source guardrail system for building secure AI agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.03574/) (2025)
- [Securing AI Agents with Information-Flow Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23643/) (2025)
- [Next-Generation Database Interfaces: A Survey of LLM-based Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08426/) (2024)
- [Privacy-Preserving In-Context Learning with Differentially Private Few-Shot Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.11765/) (2023)
- [System-Level Defense against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks: An Information Flow Control Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.19091/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model agents increasingly query databases, search document collections, call external APIs, remember past interactions, and act on a user's behalf. As they move from answering questions to operating over sensitive data, privacy becomes harder to enforce. An agent touches many data sources, runs multi-step workflows, keeps state across sessions, and acts with delegated permissions. Sensitive information can therefore leak not only through its final answer but through the queries it issues, the intermediate results it handles, the memory it writes, and the messages it exchanges with other agents. We survey the privacy of LLM agents from a data-centric view, organizing the field around the data an agent touches rather than by attack type, and we use data agent as shorthand for an LLM agent that works with data. Research on these risks is active but scattered across retrieval-augmented generation, text-to-SQL interfaces, agent memory, prompt injection, access control, and contextual privacy. This survey brings that work together: we taxonomize the data sources an agent touches, the privacy risks each source creates, and the governance mechanisms that address them; we map the benchmarks used to measure these risks and identify what is missing; and we set out the open problems. Two findings recur: among governance mechanisms only information-flow control covers both compositional and cross-session inference leakage, the two least-protected risks; and no benchmark drives an agent across its data surfaces under one privacy policy, the instrument the field most lacks. Our goal is a reference that situates the scattered literature and gives future work a common framing.