Skip to content

Agent Data Injection Attacks are Realistic Threats to AI Agents

Jul 2026 · arXiv.org · Vol abs/2607.05120 · 3 citations · 59 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

A new category of IPI, agent data injection attacks (ADI), which exposes a critical gap in agent security, signifying that current AI agents do not employ a fundamental security principle: current agents do not isolate trusted data from untrusted data.

Abstract

AI agents act on behalf of user prompts, consuming external data and taking actions based on the agent context. Prior research on AI agent security has primarily focused on indirect prompt injection (IPI). Its most well-studied category is instruction injection, where attacker-controlled untrusted data is interpreted as an instruction. In response, many mitigations have been proposed to prevent instruction injection attacks. In this paper, we introduce a new category of IPI, agent data injection attacks (ADI). ADI injects malicious data disguised as trusted data, such as security-critical metadata (e.g., resource identifiers or data origins) or agent context data (e.g., tool call and response formats). As a result, agents unknowingly execute unintended actions based on attacker-controlled data. ADI has similar attack impacts as instruction injection attacks, because it causes agents to misbehave and execute unintended actions. Despite the similar impact, ADI remains underexplored and easily bypasses existing IPI defenses. We found several critical vulnerabilities in real-world agents that allow an attacker to launch various attacks: arbitrary click attacks on web agents (Claude in Chrome, Antigravity, and Nanobrowser), and remote code execution and supply-chain attacks on coding agents (Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLI). We evaluate ADI vulnerabilities across off-the-shelf models and AI agents, and find that ADI is effective in both standalone LLMs and AI agent settings. ADI exposes a critical gap in agent security, signifying that current AI agents do not employ a fundamental security principle: current agents do not isolate trusted data from untrusted data.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Preprint Aug 2026

CAITLYN: Can LLM Agents Autonomously Synthesize Defenses against Emerging Injection Attacks?

This work proposes Continuous Agents for Injection Threats via Lifelong Yielding Nexus (CAITLYN), an agent-agnostic defense middleware that matches the detection performance of state-of-the-art defenses at lower token overhead than LLM-as-a-judge baselines.

Zi Liang, XiaoYu Xu, Yanyun Wang et al. · 1 citation
Review Jul 2026

Cyber-Capable AI Agents: Vulnerabilities, Evaluation Containment, and Defensive Response

Cyber-capable AI agents combine language models with tools, memory, and execution environments to perform multi-step offensive-security tasks. Existing work separately measures cyber capability and catalogs attacks against agent components, but provides less guidance on containing a capable agent within the environment...

A. B. Siddik · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Beyond Direct Access: Resource Hijacking in LLM Agents

This work is the first to identify and systematically study agent resource hijacking, a security blind spot in which attackers induce agents to invoke, consume, transfer, or control high-value resources for their own goals without directly obtaining those resources or their credentials.

Pu-Yu Zeng, Min-Gang Chen, Zhe-Li Liu et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.