mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

CredLeakBench: Evaluating Credential Leakage and Recovery in LLM Agents

arXiv 2610.08871 ↗First posted 6 Oct 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Language model agents are increasingly deployed to automate everyday digital chores from managing emails and social media to handling banking and bills allowing users to step away from supervision. However, this capability also exposes sensitive information to phishing. Safe execution requires distinguishing malicious requests from genuine ones without simply refusing to act. Despite its practical importance, this problem remains underexplored and it is unclear whether current agents or existing defenses can achieve it. To study this problem, we first propose CredLeak-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate how effectively and securely agents automate human workflows when confronted with phishing and identity verification. The benchmark covers both user-directed authentication and autonomous inbox monitoring, where agents are not explicitly instructed to log in. It systematically varies deceptive cues and pairs phishing scenarios with legitimate counterparts, enabling joint evaluation of information leakage and utility on genuine tasks. Within a sandboxed environment, leakage is measured through actual submissions of information rather than agents' self-reported behavior. Our evaluation reveals that all tested models are vulnerable to leakage. Agents also disclose sensitive information during autonomous inbox monitoring, demonstrating that phishing can induce disclosure without a user request to authenticate. Furthermore, most evaluated mitigations that reduce leakage also impair performance on genuine tasks, exposing a security utility trade off in existing defenses. These findings show why reducing leakage alone is insufficient: effective defenses must prevent unauthorized disclosure while preserving legitimate task completion. CredLeak-Bench provides a controlled framework for measuring both objectives and evaluating progress toward secure, useful agents.

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 6 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. 2025Simple Prompt Injection Attacks Can Leak Personal Data Observed by LLM Agents During Task Execution
  2. 2026API Secrets Should Never Become Tokens in the LLM's Vocabulary: A Threat Analysis of API Credential Handling in LLM Agent Systems and an Empirical Evaluation of a Vault-Mediated Execution Boundary
  3. 2026AgentLeak: A Benchmark for Internal-Channel Privacy Leakage in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
  4. 2024Whispers in the Machine: Confidentiality in Agentic Systems
  5. 2026Caught in the Act(ivation): Toward Pre-Output and Multi-Turn Detection of Credential Exfiltration by LLM Agents
  6. 2026An Evaluation of Data Leakage Risks in Tool-Using LLM Agents in Realistic Scenarios
  7. 2026How Your Credentials Are Leaked by LLM Agent Skills: An Empirical Study
  8. 2024Privacy Leakage Overshadowed by Views of AI: A Study on Human Oversight of Privacy in Language Model Agent