mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Data Leakage Prevention in Agentic Applications via Preemptive Hardening

arXiv 2607.18847 ↗First posted 21 Jul 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

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

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic systems integrate LLM driven planning with interfaces to external tools, making data leakage and tool misuse feasible via instruction/data boundary failures and prompt injection attacks. Enforcing required controls consistently is particularly challenging in workflows spanning many codebases and heterogeneous agents. To address this challenge in multi agentic systems, we present a pre-deployment pipeline for scanning, hardening, and validation of agentic applications. The pipeline analyzes prompt templates, tool interfaces, and tool-invocation code to identify leakage-enabling patterns and generate actionable patches. The hardened application is then validated through adversarial prompt injection attacks and benign input variations ensuring that mitigations do not disrupt intended behavior. In the hardening stage, high-risk tools are prioritized, and minimally invasive mitigations are applied, including schema tightening, boundary sanitization, allowlist-based tool gating, and least-privilege checks. In the validation stage, the pipeline automatically generates attack inputs that mimic jailbreaks, instruction overrides, and tool-targeted manipulation, along with benign task variants, to confirm that the functionality of the hardened application is preserved after remediation. We evaluated the pipeline on five real-world agentic applications, as well as on the AgentDojo benchmark. Across all applications, the proposed pipeline identified recurring leakage-enabling patterns and generated patches that can be integrated without disrupting the intended application behavior. The resulting modifications of application code were shown to eliminate leaks when targeted by basic jailbreak and instruction-override attacks, achieving a 100% reduction in leakage, and reduce leaks by 91% under conditions of stress-induced manipulation, without the need of continuous runtime policy enforcement.

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 23 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jul 2026.

Builds on

23 of 33 references.

Closest ancestors · 14

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Fault-Tolerant Sandboxing for AI Coding Agents: A Transactional Approach to Safe Autonomous Execution14 Dec
  2. 2025The Trust Paradox in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems: When Collaboration Becomes a Security Vulnerability21 Oct
  3. 2025Breaking and Fixing Defenses Against Control-Flow Hijacking in Multi-Agent Systems20 Oct
  4. 2025The Sum Leaks More Than Its Parts: Compositional Privacy Risks and Mitigations in Multi-Agent Collaboration16 Sep
  5. 2025SAFEFLOW: A Principled Protocol for Trustworthy and Transactional Autonomous Agent Systems9 Jun
  6. 2025ATAG: AI-Agent Application Threat Assessment with Attack Graphs3 Jun
  7. 2025A Survey on the Safety and Security Threats of Computer-Using Agents: JARVIS or Ultron?16 May
  8. 2025LlamaFirewall: An open source guardrail system for building secure AI agents6 May
  9. 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
  10. 2025Prompt Flow Integrity to Prevent Privilege Escalation in LLM Agents17 Mar
  11. 2025AGrail: A Lifelong Agent Guardrail with Effective and Adaptive Safety Detection17 Feb
  12. 2025RTBAS: Defending LLM Agents Against Prompt Injection and Privacy Leakage13 Feb
2 more
  1. 2024IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems8 Mar
  2. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep

Other references · 9

  1. 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
  2. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
  3. 2024StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queriescited by 375
  4. 2025Securing AI Agents with Information-Flow Controlcited by 121
  5. 2025PromptShield: Deployable Detection for Prompt Injection Attackscited by 50
  6. 2024Defense Against Prompt Injection Attack by Leveraging Attack Techniquescited by 40
  7. 2025Defending Against Prompt Injection With a Few DefensiveTokenscited by 33
  8. 2024Permissive Information-Flow Analysis for Large Language Modelscited by 22
  9. 2025Proactive defense against LLM Jailbreakcited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025AgentGuard: Repurposing Agentic Orchestrator for Safety Evaluation of Tool Orchestration
  2. 2026ChainFuzzer: Greybox Fuzzing for Workflow-Level Multi-Tool Vulnerabilities in LLM Agents
  3. 2026AgenTRIM: Tool Risk Mitigation for Agentic AI
  4. 2026AgentFlow: A Flow-Centric Policy Language and Framework for Securing LLM Agent Systems
  5. 2026TRACE: Task-Aware Adaptive Self-Evolving Agentic Jailbreaking
  6. 2026Agentic Security: A Systematization of Tools, Failure Modes, and Design Laws for LLM-Driven Penetration Testing
  7. 2026AgentSecBench: Measuring Prompt Injection, Privacy Leakage, and Tool-Use Integrity in LLM Agents
  8. 2026Securing LLM Agents Need Intent-to-Execution Integrity