MIRROR: Multipath Quorum Integrity for LLM Multi-Agent Communication
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Inter-agent communication is central to Large Language Model Multi-Agent Systems (LLM-MAS), but it introduces an underexplored vulnerability: Agent-in-the-Middle (AiTM) attacks that manipulate messages in transit without compromising the agents themselves. Prior work reports Attack Success Rates (ASR) approaching 100% on structured tasks. Existing defenses rely on semantic validation, which requires additional inference and can block benign outputs, or on transport-layer encryption, which does not help when an intermediary legitimately terminates TLS. We present MIRROR, a communication-layer integrity primitive that replicates a single canonicalized payload across k logical routes and accepts a message only when a strict majority of routes report the same digest. MIRROR uses unkeyed hashing and so authenticates nothing on its own, since an active on-path adversary can always recompute a digest over a payload it has modified. All integrity derives from the assumption that honest routes form a majority. The digest serves only to make witness routes constant-size and to bind the recovered payload to the quorum-agreed value under second-preimage resistance. We give the guarantee under a route-compromise bound alpha < 0.5, and extend it to correlated routes, where the quantity that matters is the size of the largest shared-failure group and not the route count. We further show that availability and integrity degrade at the same threshold: below alpha = 0.5, quorum-denial and message-dropping adversaries cannot block honest traffic. Across MMLU, HumanEval, and MBPP on two frameworks and four communication topologies, and in a MetaGPT deployment against a production API, MIRROR reduces ASR to 0% below the threshold at 1x LLM token cost. LLM-as-a-Judge costs 35x in the same deployment, and blocks up to 44.2% of benign outputs in the topology sweep.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Trust propagation and structural containment in Multi-agent LLM pipelines
- 2026Early Detection of Distributed Backdoors in Multi-Agent LLM Systems: A Characterization Study
- 2026The Same Zero: Why Identical ASR Can Imply Different Guarantees in LLM-Agent Security
- 2026The Proxy Knows Too Much: Sealing LLM API Routers with Attested TEEs
- 2026Rewriting the Response Path: Silent Tampering and Provider-Signed Defense in BYOK LLM Agents
- 2026S-Bus: Automatic Read-Set Reconstruction for Multi-Agent LLM State Coordination
- 2026Breaking the Protocol: Security Analysis of the Model Context Protocol Specification and Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Tool-Integrated LLM Agents
- 2026Certified Multi-Source Integrity for Structured Agent Actions