Cited by 39Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSecurity and Verification in ComputingTopic Modeling

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 access
Shi, Jiawen, Yuan, Zenghui, Tie, Guiyao, Zhou, Pan, Gong, Neil, Sun, Lichao·2026·Proceedings 2026 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14722/ndss.2026.230675

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 39

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
Published
2026
OpenAlex
W7161032443
Cited by
39
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 35
FWCI
147.99
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
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