# Measuring and Exploiting Implicit Trust in LLM Tool-Calling Pipelines

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.18217 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.18217/

## 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 26 of its 51 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 26 of 26)

- [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)
- [Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02644/) (2024)
- [Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12815/) (2023)
- [Defeating Prompt Injections by Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18813/) (2025)
- [Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.23278/) (2025)
- [SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05451/) (2024)
- [Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.19793/) (2025)
- [DataSentinel: A Game-Theoretic Detection of Prompt Injection Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.11358/) (2025)
- [The Attacker Moves Second: Stronger Adaptive Attacks Bypass Defenses Against Llm Jailbreaks and Prompt Injections](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.09023/) (2025)
- [PLeak: Prompt Leaking Attacks against Large Language Model Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.06823/) (2024)
- [MCP Safety Audit: LLMs with the Model Context Protocol Allow Major Security Exploits](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.03767/) (2025)
- [Taming Various Privilege Escalation in LLM-Based Agent Systems: A Mandatory Access Control Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.11893/) (2026)
- [MCPSecBench: A Systematic Security Benchmark and Playground for Testing Model Context Protocols](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.13220/) (2025)
- [MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.15994/) (2025)
- [AgentLAB: Benchmarking LLM Agents against Long-Horizon Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16901/) (2026)
- [Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic Coding Assistants: A Systematic Analysis of Vulnerabilities in Skills, Tools, and Protocol Ecosystems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17548/) (2026)
- [Les Dissonances: Cross-Tool Harvesting and Polluting in Pool-of-Tools Empowered LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.03111/) (2025)
- [Breaking the Protocol: Security Analysis of the Model Context Protocol Specification and Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Tool-Integrated LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17549/) (2026)
- [Security Threat Modeling for Emerging AI-Agent Protocols: A Comparative Analysis of MCP, A2A, Agora, and ANP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11327/) (2026)
- [Attention is All You Need to Defend Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.08417/) (2025)
- [The Promptware Kill Chain: How Prompt Injections Gradually Evolved Into a Multistep Malware Delivery Mechanism](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.09625/) (2026)
- [Trivial Trojans: How Minimal MCP Servers Enable Cross-Tool Exfiltration of Sensitive Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.19880/) (2025)
- [A First Look at the Security Issues in the Model Context Protocol Ecosystem](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.16558/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) enables LLMs to invoke external tools, but every tool interaction exposes the model to attacker-controlled text through multiple input channels (tool descriptions, tool results, sampling messages) that share a single context window without privilege separation. In this paper, we present a framework to measure the trust profile of an arbitrary LLM based on a variety of payload framings sent through different channels. Following this assessment, we devise cross-channel fragmentation attacks that distribute seemingly benign payloads across two or three channels; no individual channel carries a complete injection, yet the LLM compiles the fragments into credential exfiltration. We evaluated our attacks across 12 frontier models, three production clients, and six payloads, totalling over 15,000 trials. Our evaluation reveals that cross-channel attacks are an unexplored attack surface: models that fully resist single-channel injection (0% compliance) exfiltrate sensitive data at up to 100% under two-channel fragmentation (e.g., GPT-4o, Llama 70B, Composer 2, Haiku 4.5). We further demonstrate value-aligned exploitation, where a tool's stated purpose requires the data the attacker targets, and a sampling system prompt override that injects persistent instructions via VS Code's MCP implementation. Finally, we evaluated our attacks against seven third-party MCP security tools and three prompt-based defenses. All tools failed to detect fragmented payloads, and prompt defenses proved model-specific rather than universal.