mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

ContainmentBench: Trace-Based Evaluation of Post-Exposure Containment in Tool-Using LLM Agents

arXiv 2607.23999 ↗First posted 27 Jul 2026cs.CRcited by 1

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-using large language model (LLM) agents read untrusted content, maintain memory, delegate tasks, and invoke tools with external side effects. Terminal attack-success or policy-violation rates do not show what happens between exposure and commit or whether a defense also suppresses authorized actions. We introduce ContainmentBench, a sandboxed benchmark comprising a 504-scenario specification dataset, a shared rollout-trace schema, and stage-scoped metrics for endpoint violations, logged propagation, and explicitly authorized taint-exposed proposals that commit. The main Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct study evaluates seven policy conditions and five seeds, yielding a 17,640-record trace corpus. Across 600 matched active-tainted rollout pairs, no committed policy violation was observed under either taint-only or intent-ledger enforcement. Their execution records nevertheless differed: 441 pairs (73.5%) had different values in a shared 12-field trace summary that includes commit-related diagnostics, and the mean authorized proposal-commit score was 0.164 under taint-only enforcement and 0.857 under intent-ledger enforcement, compared with 0.923 under tool-boundary enforcement. Logged-propagation rankings changed with stage selection and normalization. In a limited set of custom AgentDojo-native workflows, committed violations were observed without defense and were not observed under either evaluated defense. A separate 6,048-rollout Mistral/common-JSON model-interface configuration retained the v1-to-v2 proposal-commit improvement, but committed violations were observed under intent-ledger v2. Equal terminal outcomes do not imply equal containment. The evaluation uses synthetic workflows. The intended intent-ledger mechanism assumes schema-aligned authorization metadata; one public-status task family violates this assumption and is analyzed separately.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper 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 25 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jul 2026.

Builds on

25 of 29 references.

Closest ancestors · 14

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Defending against Adaptive Prompt Injection Attacks via Reasoning-enabled Task Alignment13 Jun
  2. 2026AutoDojo: Adaptive Black-Box Attacks Reveal the Limits of IPI Defenses and Task-Specification Effects in LLM Agents13 Jun
  3. 2026Aligning Provenance with Authorization: A Dual-Graph Defense for LLM Agents26 May
  4. 2026Hidden in Memory: Sleeper Memory Poisoning in LLM Agents14 May
  5. 2026Ghost in the Agent: Redefining Information Flow Tracking for LLM Agents25 Apr
  6. 2026ClawGuard: A Runtime Security Framework for Tool-Augmented LLM Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection13 Apr
  7. 2026AttriGuard: Defeating Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents via Causal Attribution of Tool Invocations11 Mar
  8. 2026AgentLAB: Benchmarking LLM Agents against Long-Horizon Attacks18 Feb
  9. 2025Mitigating Indirect Prompt Injection via Instruction-Following Intent Analysis30 Nov
  10. 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control16 Apr
  11. 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
  12. 2025Adaptive Attacks Break Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Agents27 Feb
2 more
  1. 2024The Task Shield: Enforcing Task Alignment to Defend Against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents21 Dec
  2. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar

Other references · 11

  1. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
  2. 2023XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 505
  3. 2024StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queriescited by 375
  4. 2023Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defensescited by 364
  5. 2024SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimizationcited by 210
  6. 2026AgentDyn: Are Your Agent Security Defenses Deployable in Real-World Dynamic Environments?cited by 59
  7. 2024Permissive Information-Flow Analysis for Large Language Modelscited by 22
  8. 2025LLMail-Inject: A Dataset from a Realistic Adaptive Prompt Injection Challengecited by 21
  9. 2026PISmith: Reinforcement Learning-based Red Teaming for Prompt Injection Defensescited by 16
  10. 2026PIArena: A Platform for Prompt Injection Evaluationcited by 11
  11. 2026AgentWatcher: A Rule-based Prompt Injection Monitorcited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Context-Fractured Decomposition Attacks on Tool-Using LLM Agents: Exploiting Artifact Provenance Gaps
  2. 2026TraceGrant: A Contract-Governed Security Framework for the Task-Effect Lifecycle of Networked LLM Agents
  3. 2026PACE: Provenance-Aware Capability Enforcement for Tool-Using LLM Agents
  4. 2026SafeClawBench: Separating Semantic, Audit-Evidence, and Sandbox Harm in Tool-Using LLM Agents
  5. 2026ASLEval: Measuring Privacy Exposure Displacement in LLM Agent Sessions
  6. 2026Boundary-State Control for Tool-Using Language-Model Agents: Commit-Time Consistency under State Drift
  7. 2026LLM Agents Can Easily Tamper With Their Own Traces
  8. 2026AgentRaft: Automated Detection of Data Over-Exposure in LLM Agents