# No-Box Vulnerability Analysis: Description-only Detection of Indirect Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in MCP Servers

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.10854 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.10854/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security.
- Builds on 18 of its 58 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM safety and security / [Prompt injection and agent security](https://mlsanity.com/safety/prompt-injection-and-agent-security/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [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)
- [The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13208/) (2024)
- [StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06363/) (2024)
- [Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlighting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14720/) (2024)
- [Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.19793/) (2025)
- [AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.13352/) (2024)
- [The Attacker Moves Second: Stronger Adaptive Attacks Bypass Defenses Against Llm Jailbreaks and Prompt Injections](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.09023/) (2025)
- [Adaptive Attacks Break Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.00061/) (2025)
- [Abusing Images and Sounds for Indirect Instruction Injection in Multi-Modal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.10490/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Separate Instructions From Data? And What Do We Even Mean By That?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.06833/) (2024)
- [MELON: Provable Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks in AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05174/) (2025)
- [PromptShield: Deployable Detection for Prompt Injection Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.15145/) (2025)
- [AgentArmor: Enforcing Program Analysis on Agent Runtime Trace to Defend Against Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.01249/) (2025)
- [Practical No-box Adversarial Attacks against DNNs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.02525/) (2020)
- [Practical No-box Adversarial Attacks with Training-free Hybrid Image Transformation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.04607/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Conventional vulnerability analysis relies on either system access or dynamic interaction, all of which may be unavailable to third-party analysts auditing closed-source, remotely hosted, critical in situ systems, or commercially gated software. Therefore, we propose a new paradigm of no-box vulnerability analysis in which neither access nor runtime interaction is available, and only functionality metadata is available. Such metadata defines the intended behavior of the system, including its inputs, outputs, and side effects, while constraining the space of implementations consistent with that behavior. We propose hypothesizing about vulnerabilities that exist across all possible implementations of a given system metadata, without observing or interacting with the target system. An analyst can later validate these hypotheses when additional access is available. We showcase the feasibility of no-box vulnerability analysis through implementing a prototype called MCPSEC, which audits Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers for indirect prompt injection vulnerabilities using only the tool metadata exposed at server registration time. We evaluate MCPSEC on 20 widely deployed MCP servers comprising 177 tools, among which human evaluators confirm 95 vulnerable tools. MCPSEC identified 143 tools as vulnerable, and for each vulnerable tool, it produced a hypothesized vulnerability along with exploitation technique. Using metadata alone, MCPSEC predicted 94 (98.9% recall) real verified vulnerabilities, compared against an LLM baseline with 80 (84.2% recall). Overall, our results introduce no-box vulnerability analysis as a new analysis paradigm and demonstrate its practical feasibility in realistic systems.