# The Innocent Courier: Covert Exfiltration Through Legitimate LLM Web Fetching

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.01768 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.01768/

## 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 20 of its 39 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 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, 20 of 20)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09527/) (2022)
- [Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05499/) (2023)
- [Phi-4-Mini Technical Report: Compact yet Powerful Multimodal Language Models via Mixture-of-LoRAs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01743/) (2025)
- [StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06363/) (2024)
- [Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12815/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-Coder-V2: Breaking the Barrier of Closed-Source Models in Code Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11931/) (2024)
- [SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05451/) (2024)
- [Granite Code Models: A Family of Open Foundation Models for Code Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.04324/) (2024)
- [We Have a Package for You! A Comprehensive Analysis of Package Hallucinations by Code Generating LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10279/) (2024)
- [Commercial LLM Agents Are Already Vulnerable to Simple Yet Dangerous Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08586/) (2025)
- [Importing Phantoms: Measuring LLM Package Hallucination Vulnerabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19012/) (2025)
- [MapCoder-Lite: Distilling Multi-Agent Coding into a Single Small LLM](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.17489/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

With the increasing capabilities of Large-Language-Models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents, users are increasingly using them to solve everyday problems, such as answering e-mails or providing programming support. Existing work has extensively investigated security and privacy risks, such as prompt injections and the disclosure of sensitive data to chatbot providers. While various solutions were developed to address these risks, including input structuring to prevent prompt injections or deploying local LLMs to avoid sharing confidential data with chatbot operators, LLMs also pose the risk of leaking confidential data to third parties. In this paper, we demonstrate with LLMLeak a novel attack vector where malicious software that runs locally but cannot communicate directly with the internet abuses LLMs to establish a covert channel. While inputs that instruct the LLM to send data directly via generated code are easy to detect and network libraries are typically restricted, LLMLeak relies only on the LLM's tool to fetch websites for further information. A malicious software component on the client side embeds a secret into a URL. It presents the referenced website as providing information required for a benign task, such as migrating a software library. When the LLM accesses the URL, the attacker receives the encoded secret through an attacker-controlled DNS or web server. We perform an extensive evaluation on eleven open-parameter models, observe an attack success rate of 79.7%, and also conduct a case study on real-world chatbots, demonstrating the relevance of LLMLeak.