mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

StegoMemory: Agentic Memory Acts as Covert Steganographic Channel

arXiv 2610.04589 ↗First posted 3 Oct 2026cs.CR cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Is agentic memory robust against stealthy steganographic attacks? We carry out a large-scale red-teaming exercise to test whether agents can encode attacker-controlled strings in one session and recover them in another without triggering safety oversight. Following SHADE-Arena-style tasks, we embed malicious side tasks to encode secret strings using steganography within otherwise benign tasks and evaluate them using independent task-completion and safety oversight. We test 14,000 attack trials spanning 91 model-attack configurations, 13 models, and 7 steganographic schemes: Acrostic, Mesostic, Telestich, Word-choice, Capitalization, Position-based, and Homoglyph. 41.2% of trials successfully encode the target payload in the generated response, while 29.8% survive the memory-write step with the encoding intact. Overall, 25.4% of trials yield a recoverable payload at retrieval, and 20.1% achieve exact-match recovery, including synthetic API keys and cryptographic material never exposed to the receiver. Among the exact-match transmissions, 71.4% also pass primary task-completion scoring and are independently judged safe by the oversight model, corresponding to 14.4% of all trials in which a successful covert transmission would appear to be an ordinary, benign interaction under task-level evaluation. Our results demonstrate that agentic memory can function as a persistent cross-session covert channel. The results further show that the principal bottleneck occurs at memory persistence rather than retrieval: once a steganographic payload survives the memory-write stage, a substantial fraction remains recoverable. We therefore argue that memory integrity, information-flow control, and covert-channel detection should be explicit security requirements for agentic systems.

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 3 Oct 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Tool Use Enables Undetectable Steganography in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
  2. 2026Feedback Coding Enables Inference-Time Covert Agentic Communication ↗
  3. 2026Codetta: High-Capacity, Keyless, and Undetectable Multi-Agent Collusion
  4. 2026SMSR: Certified Defence Against Runtime Memory Poisoning in Persistent LLM Agent Systems
  5. 2026Steganalysis of Adaptive Covert Collusion in Tool-Using Agent Populations: A Black-Box, Cross-Principal Approach
  6. 2026Bad Memory: Evaluating Prompt Injection Risks from Memory in Agentic Systems
  7. 2026From Attack Success to Attack Severity: Counterfactual Memory Attacks on LLM Agents
  8. 2026MIRAGE: A Polarity-Flipping Encoding Subspace in LLM Agents