# An Experimental Evaluation of Multimodal Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic AI Frameworks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09404 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.09404/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers 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 11 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.02691/) (2024)
- [StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06363/) (2024)
- [SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05451/) (2024)
- [Automatic and Universal Prompt Injection Attacks against Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04957/) (2024)
- [MELON: Provable Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks in AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05174/) (2025)
- [WebInject: Prompt Injection Attack to Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11717/) (2025)
- [VPI-Bench: Visual Prompt Injection Attacks for Computer-Use Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.02456/) (2025)
- [LaSM: Layer-wise Scaling Mechanism for Defending Pop-up Attack on GUI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.10610/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [When AI Finds Hidden Messages, Does It Report?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.10620/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic AI frameworks let a language model plan, keep memory, and call tools that reach real files, mail, and services. Most of these agents also read images, which gives an attacker a way to put text into the agent's context without going through the user. We present MMPIBench, a reproducible benchmark that measures what happens next. It delivers a fixed set of attacks through six visual carriers (OCR text, overlays, EXIF metadata, QR codes, fake interfaces, and hybrids) and records how far each injected instruction travels through the agent, from perception through planning to the tool call. Across 720 runs covering six frameworks, five foundation models, six carriers, and four attacker objectives, attacks complete in approximately 1% of runs but are attempted in 12.8%, and the gap is closed almost entirely at the planning step, where the model reads the injected instruction and declines to act on it. The model matters far more than the framework for whether an instruction is acted on. One model never attempts an attack and recognizes the injection in 59.7% of runs, while two others attempt in 23.6%. We then extend the benchmark to audio, the only other raw perceptual channel current frontier models accept. Only two of the five models ingest audio and only three of the six frameworks deliver it, but where the signal arrives the attack completes in 49% of cells, and in 75% for one model. Reporting completion alone therefore understates exposure, and perceptual channels beyond vision are narrower but much less defended.