Cited by 46Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSecurity and Verification in ComputingWeb Application Security Vulnerabilities

From Prompt Injections to Protocol Exploits: Threats in LLM-Powered AI Agents Workflows

Open access
Ferrag, Mohamed Amine, Tihanyi, Norbert, Hamouda, Djallel, Maglaras, Leandros, Lakas, Abderrahmane, Debbah, Merouane·2026·ICT Express

Abstract

Autonomous AI agents powered by large language models (LLMs) with structured function-calling interfaces have greatly expanded capabilities for real-time data retrieval, computation, and multi-step orchestration. However, the rapid growth of plugins, connectors, and inter-agent protocols has outpaced security practices, leading to brittle integrations — plugin APIs and protocol adapters that rely on ad-hoc authentication, inconsistent schemas, and weak validation — making them vulnerable to failures and exploitation. This survey introduces a unified end-to-end threat model for LLM-agent ecosystems, spanning host-to-tool and agent-to-agent communications, and catalogs over thirty attack techniques across Input Manipulation, Model Compromise, System and Privacy Attacks, and Protocol Vulnerabilities. For each category, we provide a formal mathematical formulation of the underlying threat model, defining attacker capabilities, objectives, and affected layers to enable systematic analysis. Representative examples include Prompt-to-SQL (P2SQL) injections and the Toxic Agent Flow exploit in GitHub’s MCP server. For each category, we assess feasibility, review defenses, and outline mitigation strategies such as dynamic trust management, cryptographic provenance tracking, and sandboxed agentic interfaces. The framework was validated through expert review and cross-mapping with real-world incidents and public vulnerability repositories (e.g., CVE, NIST NVD) to ensure practical relevance. Compared to prior surveys, this work provides the first integrated taxonomy bridging input-level exploits and protocol-layer vulnerabilities in LLM-agent ecosystems while introducing formal system definitions for each threat class. Ultimately, it offers actionable insights for securing next-generation AI agents through layered defense and continuous verification. Our work provides a comprehensive reference to guide the design of secure and resilient LLM-agent workflows.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.icte.2025.12.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Persistent agent memory introduces a security concern: poisoned records retrieved from long-term memory or external knowledge bases can influence subsequent agent behavior.

    “Beyond efficiency and reasoning quality, persistent agent memory also introduces a security concern: poisoned records retrieved from long-term memory or external knowledge bases can influence subsequent agent behavior (Chen et al., 2024; Srivastava and He, 2025; Ferrag et al., 2026; Dong et al., 2025).”

    From Weighted Memory Tree: Remembering What Matters for Long-Horizon LLM Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Ferrag et al., 2026

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 16 · Cited by 46

Authors
Ferrag, M. A., Tihanyi, N., Hamouda, D., Maglaras, L., Lakas, A., & Debbah, M.
Affiliations
  • United Arab Emirates University (AE)
  • Eötvös Loránd University (HU)
  • University of Guelma (DZ)
  • De Montfort University (GB)
  • Khalifa University of Science and Technology (AE)
Corresponding author
Ferrag, Mohamed Amine
Venue
ICT Express
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-04
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
353-383
ISSN
2405-9595 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416525422
Cited by
46
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 2
FWCI
18.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ICT Express (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
United Arab Emirates University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Application Security Vulnerabilities
Keywords
LLM agents, large language models, AI agent security, threat modeling, prompt injection, protocol vulnerabilities, agent communication, privacy attacks, sandboxing, dynamic trust management, MCP server, attack taxonomy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review