Security Assessment of DeepSeek Harness with A.I.G: Evaluating Resistance to Indirect Prompt Injection
On the map: LLM safety and security → Prompt injection and agent security
Abstract (arXiv)
We assess indirect prompt injection in DeepSeek Harness (DSH), using AI-Infra-Guard (A.I.G) to construct tests, deliver controlled taint, execute DSH, collect traces, and judge outcomes. The study covers 14,560 controlled executions over 16 indirect-content channels, text and file carrier modes, 35 payload objectives, one unmodified baseline, and 12 attack methods. The experiment preserves DSH's agent loop, tool registry, model adapter, and session-event path; source tools and sensitive sinks are local fixtures, so attempted actions are recorded without external side effects. We evaluate each trace with a deterministic rule-based judge, JudgeR (RuleJudge), and a semantic LLM-based judge, JudgeL (LLMJudge). The strongest observed attack success rates are 17.0% under JudgeL for fake-completion attack in text mode, 25.5% under JudgeR for hidden Unicode in file mode, and 16.0% under JudgeR for the skills channel in file mode. JudgeL also assigns partial compliance more often than JudgeR (7.3% versus 2.0%). We relate these results to DSH's treatment of tool results, additional contexts, and tool-call policy hooks, then identify controls that should sit between untrusted content and sensitive actions. Our code is available at https://github.com/Tencent/AI-Infra-Guard/tree/main/Research/deepseek-harness-security-assessment .
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 9 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Aug 2026.
Builds on
9 of 11 references.
Closest ancestors · 9
Same direction, newest first
- 2026SkillJack: Persistent Skill Backdoors in Self-Evolving Agents4 Aug
- 2026Securing the AI Agent: A Unified Framework for Multi-Layer Agent Red Teaming30 Jun
- 2026AgentVisor: Defending LLM Agents Against Prompt Injection via Semantic Virtualization27 Apr
- 2024AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases17 Jul
- 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlighting20 Mar
- 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar
- 2024StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queries9 Feb
- 2023Benchmarking and Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Models21 Dec
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection23 Feb
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026The Framing Gap: Indirect Prompt-Injection Exfiltration Defeats Surface-Level Defenses in Tool-Using Agents
- 2026NetInjectBench: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injection in Tool-Using Large Language Model Agents for Network Operations
- 2026ActGuard: Pre-execution Action Auditing against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents
- 2026Depth-Dependent Indirect Prompt Injection in Tool-Calling ReAct Agents: Injection Depth, Payload Framing, and Turn-Budget Sensitivity
- 2026Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection via Tool Result Parsing
- 2026Silent Failures in Agentic Security Evaluation: A Validated Harness for Tool-Call Mediation Under Indirect Prompt Injection
- 2025Indirect Prompt Injections: Are Firewalls All You Need, or Stronger Benchmarks?
- 2026ROPE: Routed Origin Policy Enforcement against Indirect Prompt Injection