The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agents
Open accessAbstract
Tool selection is a key component of LLM agents.A popular approach follows a two-step processretrieval and selection -to pick the most appropriate tool from a tool library for a given task.In this work, we introduce ToolHijacker, a novel prompt injection attack targeting tool selection in no-box scenarios.ToolHijacker injects a malicious tool document into the tool library to manipulate the LLM agent's tool selection process, compelling it to consistently choose the attacker's malicious tool for an attacker-chosen target task.Specifically, we formulate the crafting of such tool documents as an optimization problem and propose a two-phase optimization strategy to solve it.Our extensive experimental evaluation shows that ToolHijacker is highly effective, significantly outperforming existing manualbased and automated prompt injection attacks when applied to tool selection.Moreover, we explore various defenses, including prevention-based defenses (StruQ and SecAlign) and detectionbased defenses (known-answer detection, DataSentinel, perplexity detection, and perplexity windowed detection).Our experimental results indicate that these defenses are insufficient, highlighting the urgent need for developing new defense strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models
Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., & Cao, Y. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.03629 · Cited by 608
Prompt Infection: LLM-to-LLM Prompt Injection within Multi-Agent Systems
Lee, D., & Tiwari, M. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.07283 · Cited by 228
InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents
Zhan, Q., Liang, Z., Ying, Z., & Kang, D. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.624 · Cited by 147
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hidden in Memory: Sleeper Memory Poisoning in LLM Agents
Pulipaka, S., Hlebik, S., Raghav, L., Abdelnabi, S., Raina, V., Sheth, I., & Fritz, M. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.15338 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Shi, J., Yuan, Z., Tie, G., Zhou, P., Gong, N., & Sun, L.
- Affiliations
- Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
- Duke University (US)
- Lehigh University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings 2026 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium
- Publisher
- Internet Society
- Published
- 2026
- OpenAlex
- W7161032443
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35
- FWCI
- 147.99
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Security and Verification in Computing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- prompt injection, tool selection, LLM agents, attack defense
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