Your Agentic LLMs Secretly Encode Latent Signals of Indirect Prompt-Injection Exposure
arXiv SecurityArchived Aug 05, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2608.02657v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic LLMs are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI) attacks, e.g., malicious side-tasks hidden in external tool results. While many efforts have sought to address the threats, little is known about the internals of agentic LLMs when they are exposed to IPI attacks, a condition which we call IPI exposure. In this paper, we study this problem in depth from three aspects. (1) Probing: Across six models, including the giant 753B-parameter GL
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
[Submitted on 1 Aug 2026]
Your Agentic LLMs Secretly Encode Latent Signals of Indirect Prompt-Injection Exposure
Jianshuo Dong, Yiming Liu, Maosen Zhang, Nan Deng, Xu Peng, Xiaoping Zhang, Tianwei Zhang, Jie Zhang, Han Qiu
Agentic LLMs are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI) attacks, e.g., malicious side-tasks hidden in external tool results. While many efforts have sought to address the threats, little is known about the internals of agentic LLMs when they are exposed to IPI attacks, a condition which we call IPI exposure. In this paper, we study this problem in depth from three aspects. (1) Probing: Across six models, including the giant 753B-parameter GLM-5.2, simple linear probes trained on pre-generation hidden states can predict LLMs' IPI exposure. These probes achieve 90%+ AUROC on unseen attacks, agent instructions, and task suites; they exhibit high robustness under adaptive attacks and in cross-lingual settings. (2) Defense: Our CoT measurement reveals a recognition--action gap: though models encode such signals, they often fail to translate them into safe actions. We then introduce AGRI, a probe-gated reasoning-based defense that prepends anti-injection reasoning on demand. On difficult AgentDojo settings, AGRI substantially reduces attack success rate, e.g., from 34.6% to 0% on Qwen3.5-27B, while largely maintaining clean-task utility. (3) Explanation: We introduce an analysis framework that identifies natural-language explanations most strongly correlated with probe-captured signals. The resulting profiles differ across models: latent signals can align with either direct IPI-exposure claims or indirect operational cues. Code is available: this https URL.
Comments: Preprint
Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2608.02657 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2608.02657v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.02657
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Jianshuo Dong [view email]
[v1] Sat, 1 Aug 2026 12:00:33 UTC (3,646 KB)
Access Paper:
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CR
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-08
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.AI
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)