analiza aiqbench
This study introduces a granular "kill-chain canary" methodology to track prompt injection attacks across four distinct stages in multi-agent LLM systems, revealing significant disparities in how different models handle exposed payloads versus those relayed through tools. The research highlights that while some models like Claude effectively isolate injected tokens from shared memory, others such as DeepSeek Chat and GPT-4o-mini exhibit high execution rates depending on the attack surface, indicating that current defense metrics often oversimplify security realities. These findings are critical for developers building autonomous agents who need to understand not just if an attack succeeds, but exactly where in the kill-chain it fails or propagates.
Kill-Chain Canaries: Stage-Level Tracking of Prompt Injection Across Attack Surfaces and Five Production LLMs
arXiv:2603.28013v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-agent LLM systems now read documents, web pages and tool results on behalf of users, yet their resistance to prompt injection is usually reported as one number: did the attack succeed? We introduce a kill-chain canary method that plants a unique token in every injected payload and records the furthest of four stages it reaches (Exposed -> Persisted -> Relayed -> Executed), across 950 runs, five production LLMs, six attack surfaces, and five defense conditions. Exposure was 100% among runs that called the tool; the outcomes differ downstream. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 executed none of their 164 text-surface attacks, and in the text relay the canary token never appeared in a memory write (0/40); GPT-4o-mini executed 53% of its attacks. Four findings follow. (1) A Claude writer kept the canary token out of shared memory in every relay run we report; one cross-model pairing (Claude writer, GPT-4o-mini reader, n = 3) is consistent with this protecting the reader, and other pairings were not tested. (2) As readers, the Claude models executed 0/40 raw pre-seeded injections, but Claude Haiku 4.5 executed 2/3 injections relayed by GPT-4o-mini; whether relayed injections are harder to refuse than raw ones is an open question. (3) DeepSeek Chat went from 0/24 on pre-seeded memory to 8/8 on tool results, scenarios that also differ in task and payload format; white-text PDF payloads, invisible on the rendered page, succeeded at least as often as visible ones. (4) pi_detector and write_filter failed on channels they do not inspect, spotlighting failed on content it wraps, and write_filter blocked the PDF relay but not the text relay, a difference we cannot explain. Code and run logs are publicly released: https://github.com/KevinChunye/prompt_injection
Abstract:Multi-agent LLM systems now read documents, web pages and tool results on behalf of users, yet their resistance to prompt injection is usually reported as one number: did the attack succeed? We introduce a kill-chain canary method that plants a unique token in every injected payload and records the furthest of four stages it reaches (Exposed -> Persisted -> Relayed -> Executed), across 950 runs, five production LLMs, six attack surfaces, and five defense conditions. Exposure was 100% among runs that called the tool; the outcomes differ downstream. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 executed none of their 164 text-surface attacks, and in the text relay the canary token never appeared in a memory write (0/40); GPT-4o-mini executed 53% of its attacks. Four findings follow. (1) A Claude writer kept the canary token out of shared memory in every relay run we report; one cross-model pairing (Claude writer, GPT-4o-mini reader, n = 3) is consistent with this protecting the reader, and other pairings were not tested. (2) As readers, the Claude models executed 0/40 raw pre-seeded injections, but Claude Haiku 4.5 executed 2/3 injections relayed by GPT-4o-mini; whether relayed injections are harder to refuse than raw ones is an open question. (3) DeepSeek Chat went from 0/24 on pre-seeded memory to 8/8 on tool results, scenarios that also differ in task and payload format; white-text PDF payloads, invisible on the rendered page, succeeded at least as often as visible ones. (4) pi_detector and write_filter failed on channels they do not inspect, spotlighting failed on content it wraps, and write_filter blocked the PDF relay but not the text relay, a difference we cannot explain. Code and run logs are publicly released: this https URL
12 pages, 6 figures, 6 tables. Code: this https URL
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
I.2.7; I.2.11; K.6.5
arXiv:2603.28013 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2603.28013v4 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.28013 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 396 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Frontier Risk Report (February to March 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026

Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026

Frontier AI Risk Report (February–March 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026

Building trust in AI agents: A production-ready evaluation framework with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · 16 oct. 2026