# Prompt Injection Detection for Email Agents Through Attack Chain Modeling

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30657 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.30657/

## 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 12 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 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, 12 of 12)

- [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)
- [Defeating Prompt Injections by Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18813/) (2025)
- [Benchmarking and Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.14197/) (2023)
- [Tensor Trust: Interpretable Prompt Injection Attacks from an Online Game](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.01011/) (2023)
- [PromptShield: Deployable Detection for Prompt Injection Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.15145/) (2025)
- [LLM Agents Making Agent Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11705/) (2025)
- [LLMs in Software Security: A Survey of Vulnerability Detection Techniques and Insights](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.07049/) (2025)
- [InjecGuard: Benchmarking and Mitigating Over-defense in Prompt Injection Guardrail Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.22770/) (2024)
- [LLMail-Inject: A Dataset from a Realistic Adaptive Prompt Injection Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09956/) (2025)
- [Debate-Driven Multi-Agent LLMs for Phishing Email Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.22038/) (2025)
- [Detection Method for Prompt Injection by Integrating Pre-trained Model and Heuristic Feature Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06384/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model email assistants are particularly vulnerable to indirect prompt injection because untrusted email content can be retrieved into the model context and influence subsequent tool use. Existing prompt injection detectors mainly formulate this problem as binary malicious text classification, which overlooks the important factor that harmful agent behavior often arises through a sequence of stages. We propose a detection framework that models this attack chain by combining a text detector, verifiers specific to each stage, explicit rule-based risk signals, user intent and action consistency analysis, and a logistic decision policy. To support this framework, we derive attack chain labels from prompt injection datasets, evaluate the proposed framework under random splits, temporal phase transfer, conditional stage transfer, cross-dataset transfer, and conduct ablation studies on multiple benchmarks. Results show that random train test splits substantially overestimate robustness under distribution shift, while later tool argument stages are more predictable than earlier stages in the framework. We also show that training on harmless emails that resemble attacks helps reduce false alarms while preserving the ability to detect real attacks. Across five binary benchmarks, our framework achieves a mean F1 score of 0.406 under the strict threshold setting policy, compared with 0.216 for the strongest of five pretrained detectors evaluated without additional training. These results highlight the value of combining attack stage predictions with checks for conflicts between the user's request and instructions in retrieved emails. Our experiments also demonstrate the importance of training with challenging benign examples to balance attack detection and false alarms.