Breaking Agents: Compromising Autonomous LLM Agents Through Malfunction Amplification
Open accessAbstract
Recently, autonomous agents built on large language models (LLMs) have experienced significant development and are being deployed in real-world applications. These agents can extend the base LLM's capabilities in multiple ways. For example, a well-built agent using GPT-3.5-Turbo as its core can outperform the more advanced GPT-4 model by leveraging external components. More importantly, the usage of tools enables these systems to perform actions in the real world, moving from merely generating text to actively interacting with their environment. Given the agents' practical applications and their ability to execute consequential actions, it is crucial to assess potential vulnerabilities. Such autonomous systems can cause more severe damage than a standalone language model if compromised. While some existing research has explored harmful actions by LLM agents, our study approaches the vulnerability from a different perspective. We introduce a new type of attack that causes malfunctions by misleading the agent into executing repetitive or irrelevant actions. We conduct comprehensive evaluations using various attack methods, surfaces, and properties to pinpoint areas of susceptibility. Our experiments reveal that these attacks can induce failure rates exceeding 80\% in multiple scenarios. Through attacks on implemented and deployable agents in multi-agent scenarios, we accentuate the realistic risks associated with these vulnerabilities. To mitigate such attacks, we propose self-examination detection methods. However, our findings indicate these attacks are difficult to detect effectively using LLMs alone, highlighting the substantial risks associated with this vulnerability.
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
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.
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?
Most existing multi-agent systems lack robustness.
“Most existing multi-agent systems lack robustness (Chen et al., 2024a;Zhang et al., 2024;He et al., 2025).”
From Free-MAD: Consensus-Free Multi-Agent Debate (2026) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2024
Section 5.5 (page unavailable) reports effective attacks in two multi-agent scenarios, supporting a robustness concern for the systems tested. But it says the evaluation used only two implemented agents; it does not establish that most existing multi-agent systems lack robustness. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- Sahar Abdelnabi, Kai Greshake, Shailesh Mishra, Christoph Endres, Thorsten Holz, and Mario Fritz. Not What You've Signed Up For: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection. In Workshop on Security and Artificial Intelligence (AISec), pages 79-90. ACM, 2023. 4
- Battista Biggio, Igino Corona, Davide Maiorca, Blaine Nel- son, Nedim Srndic, Pavel Laskov, Giorgio Giacinto, and Fabio Roli. Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Time. In European Conference on Machine Learning and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML/PKDD), pages 387-402. Springer, 2013. 3
- Nicholas Boucher, Ilia Shumailov, Ross Anderson, and Nico- las Papernot. Bad Characters: Imperceptible NLP Attacks. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P), pages 1987-2004. IEEE, 2022. 3, 4, 12
- Ting-Yun Chang and Robin Jia. Data Curation Alone Can Sta- bilize In-context Learning. In Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 8123-8144. ACL, 2023. 5
- Patrick Chao, Alexander Robey, Edgar Dobriban, Hamed Hassani, George J. Pappas, and Eric Wong. Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queries. CoRR abs/2310.08419, 2023. 1 · arXiv
- Gelei Deng, Yi Liu, Yuekang Li, Kailong Wang, Ying Zhang, Zefeng Li, Haoyu Wang, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. Jail- breaker: Automated Jailbreak Across Multiple Large Lan- guage Model Chatbots. CoRR abs/2307.08715, 2023. 1 · arXiv
- Erik Derner, Kristina Batistic, Jan Zahálka, and Robert Babuska. A Security Risk Taxonomy for Large Language Models. CoRR abs/2311.11415, 2023. 12 · arXiv
- Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Zhiyong Wu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Jingjing Xu, Lei Li, and Zhifang Sui. A Survey on In-context Learning. CoRR abs/2301.00234, 2023. 5 · arXiv
- Haonan Duan, Adam Dziedzic, Mohammad Yaghini, Nico- las Papernot, and Franziska Boenisch. On the Privacy Risk of In-context Learning. In Workshop on Trustworthy Natural Language Processing (TrustNLP), 2023. 5
- Steffen Eger, Gözde Gül Sahin, Andreas Rücklé, Ji-Ung Lee, Claudia Schulz, Mohsen Mesgar, Krishnkant Swarnkar, Ed- win Simpson, and Iryna Gurevych. Text Processing Like Hu- mans Do: Visually Attacking and Shielding NLP Systems. In Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technolo- gies (NAACL-HLT), pages 1634-1647. ACL, 2019. 5
- Xuanjie Fang, Sijie Cheng, Yang Liu, and Wei Wang. Mod- eling Adversarial Attack on Pre-trained Language Models as Sequential Decision Making. In Annual Meeting of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 7322-7336. ACL, 2023. 3, 4, 12
- Piotr Gainski and Klaudia Balazy. Step by Step Loss Goes Very Far: Multi-Step Quantization for Adversarial Text At- tacks. In Conference of the European Chapter of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics (EACL), pages 2030-2040. ACL, 2023. 3, 4, 12
- Ian Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. Ex- plaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples. In Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2015. 3
- Kai Greshake, Sahar Abdelnabi, Shailesh Mishra, Christoph Endres, Thorsten Holz, and Mario Fritz. More than you've asked for: A Comprehensive Analysis of Novel Prompt Injec- tion Threats to Application-Integrated Large Language Mod- els. CoRR abs/2302.12173, 2023. 4 · arXiv
- Chuan Guo, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Hervé Jégou, and Douwe Kiela. Gradient-based Adversarial Attacks against Text Transformers. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5747-5757. ACL, 2021. 3, 4, 12
- Yangsibo Huang, Samyak Gupta, Mengzhou Xia, Kai Li, and Danqi Chen. Catastrophic Jailbreak of Open-source LLMs via Exploiting Generation. CoRR abs/2310.06987, 2023. 1 · arXiv
- Mohit Iyyer, John Wieting, Kevin Gimpel, and Luke Zettle- moyer. Adversarial Example Generation with Syntactically Controlled Paraphrase Networks. In Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL- HLT), pages 1875-1885. ACL, 2018. 5
- Haoran Li, Dadi Guo, Wei Fan, Mingshi Xu, and Yangqiu Song. Multi-step Jailbreaking Privacy Attacks on ChatGPT. CoRR abs/2304.05197, 2023. 1 · arXiv
- Jinfeng Li, Shouling Ji, Tianyu Du, Bo Li, and Ting Wang. TextBugger: Generating Adversarial Text Against Real-world Applications. In Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS). Internet Society, 2019. 3, 4, 12
- ZhHaoran Li, Yulin Chen, Jinglong Luo, Yan Kang, Xiaojin Zhang, Qi Hu, Chunkit Chan, and Yangqiu Song. Privacy in Large Language Models: Attacks, Defenses and Future Direc- tions. CoRR abs/2310.10383, 2023. 12 · arXiv
- Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Cosgrove, Christopher D. Manning, Christopher Ré, Diana Acosta- Navas, Drew A. Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue Wang, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel J. Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yük- sekgönül, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri S. Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. Holistic Evaluation of Language Models. CoRR abs/2211.09110, 2022. 12 · arXiv
- Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, Shudan Zhang, Xiang Deng, Aohan Zeng, Zhengxiao Du, Chenhui Zhang, Sheng Shen, Tianjun Zhang, Yu Su, Huan Sun, Minlie Huang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents. CoRR abs/2308.03688, 2023. 3, 12 · arXiv
- Xiaogeng Liu, Nan Xu, Muhao Chen, and Chaowei Xiao. Au- toDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Models. CoRR abs/2310.04451, 2023. 1 · arXiv
- Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Zhengzi Xu, Yuekang Li, Yaowen Zheng, Ying Zhang, Lida Zhao, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. Jail- breaking ChatGPT via Prompt Engineering: An Empirical Study. CoRR abs/2305.13860, 2023. 1 · arXiv
- Yupei Liu, Yuqi Jia, Runpeng Geng, Jinyuan Jia, and Neil Zhenqiang Gong. InstrPrompt Injection Attacks and Defenses in LLM-Integrated Applications. CoRR abs/2310.12815, 2023. 4 · arXiv
- Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Rethink- ing the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work? In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 11048-11064. ACL, 2022. 5
- Lingbo Mo, Zeyi Liao, Boyuan Zheng, Yu Su, Chaowei Xiao, and Huan Sun. A Trembling House of Cards? Map- ping Adversarial Attacks against Language Agents. CoRR abs/2402.10196, 2024. 1, 2, 12 · arXiv
- Jane Pan, Tianyu Gao, Howard Chen, and Danqi Chen. What In-Context Learning "Learns" In-Context: Disentangling Task Recognition and Task Learning. CoRR abs/2305.09731, 2023. · arXiv
- Ashwinee Panda, Tong Wu, Jiachen T. Wang, and Prateek Mittal. Differentially Private In-Context Learning. CoRR abs/2305.01639, 2023. 5 · arXiv
- Joon Sung Park, Joseph C. O'Brien, Carrie J. Cai, Mered- ith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behav- ior. CoRR abs/2304.03442, 2023. 12 · arXiv
- Yao Qiang, Xiangyu Zhou, and Dongxiao Zhu. Hijacking Large Language Models via Adversarial In-Context Learning. CoRR abs/2311.09948, 2023. 5 · arXiv
- Yangjun Ruan, Honghua Dong, Andrew Wang, Silviu Pitis, Yongchao Zhou, Jimmy Ba, Yann Dubois, Chris J. Maddison, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). ICLR, 2024. 1, 3, 5, 12
- Xinyue Shen, Zeyuan Chen, Michael Backes, Yun Shen, and Yang Zhang. Do Anything Now: Characterizing and Evaluat- ing In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Mod- els. In ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Commu- nications Security (CCS). ACM, 2024. 3, 4, 11, 12
- Octavian Suciu, Radu Mȃrginean, Yigitcan Kaya, Hal Daumé III, and Tudor Dumitraş. When Does Machine Learning FAIL? Generalized Transferability for Evasion and Poisoning Attacks. In USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security), pages 1299-1316. USENIX, 2018. 3
- Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Nikhil Kandpal, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. Universal Adversarial Triggers for Attacking and Analyzing NLP. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and International Joint Con- ference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2153-2162. ACL, 2019. 3, 4, 12
- Boxin Wang, Weixin Chen, Hengzhi Pei, Chulin Xie, Mintong Kang, Chenhui Zhang, Chejian Xu, Zidi Xiong, Ritik Dutta, Rylan Schaeffer, Sang T. Truong, Simran Arora, Mantas Mazeika, Dan Hendrycks, Zinan Lin, Yu Cheng, Sanmi Koyejo, Dawn Song, and Bo Li. DecodingTrust: A Compre- hensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Models. CoRR abs/2306.11698, 2023. 12 · arXiv
- Jiongxiao Wang, Zichen Liu, Keun Hee Park, Muhao Chen, and Chaowei Xiao. Adversarial Demonstration Attacks on Large Language Models. CoRR abs/2305.14950, 2023. 3, 4, 5, 12 · arXiv
- Jun Yan, Vikas Yadav, Shiyang Li, Lichang Chen, Zheng Tang, Hai Wang, Vijay Srinivasan, Xiang Ren, and Hongxia Jin. Backdooring Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models with Virtual Prompt Injection. CoRR abs/2307.16888, 2023. · arXiv
- Wenkai Yang, Xiaohan Bi, Yankai Lin, Sishuo Chen, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. Watch Out for Your Agents! Inves- tigating Backdoor Threats to LLM-Based Agents. CoRR abs/2402.11208, 2024. 1, 2, 12 · arXiv
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). ICLR, 2023. 3
- Jiahao Yu, Xingwei Lin, Zheng Yu, and Xinyu Xing. GPT- FUZZER: Red Teaming Large Language Models with Auto- Generated Jailbreak Prompts. CoRR abs/2309.10253, 2023. · arXiv
- Qiusi Zhan, Zhixiang Liang, Zifan Ying, and Daniel Kang. InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents. CoRR abs/2403.02691, 2024. 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 12 · arXiv
- Shuyan Zhou, Frank F. Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, and Graham Neubig. WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents. CoRR abs/2307.13854, 2023. 2 · arXiv
- Kaijie Zhu, Jindong Wang, Jiaheng Zhou, Zichen Wang, Hao Chen, Yidong Wang, Linyi Yang, Wei Ye, Neil Zhenqiang Gong, Yue Zhang, and Xing Xie. PromptBench: Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models on Ad- versarial Prompts. CoRR abs/2306.04528, 2023. 3, 4, 12 · arXiv
- Terry Yue Zhuo, Yujin Huang, Chunyang Chen, and Zhen- chang Xing. Red teaming ChatGPT via Jailbreaking: Bias, Robustness, Reliability and Toxicity. CoRR abs/2301.12867, 2023. 1 · arXiv
- Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, J. Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson. Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models. CoRR abs/2307.15043, 2023. 3, 4, 5, 12 · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Agentic AI Security: Threats, Defenses, Evaluation, and Open Challenges
Chhabra, A., Datta, S., Nahin, S. K., & Mohapatra, P. (2026) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3675554 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“Finally, agent identity misuse, such as spoofing or overprivileged agents taking unauthorized action, poses serious organizational risk [47].”
Unveiling Privacy Risks in LLM Agent Memory
Wang, B., He, W., Zeng, S., Xiang, Z., Xing, Y., Tang, J., & He, P. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1227 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
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 18 · see citing works
AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents
Wang, H., Poskitt, C. M., & Sun, J. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 IEEE/ACM 48th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3744916.3764546 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model-Based Agents
Su, H., Luo, J., Liu, C., Yang, X., Zhang, Y., Dong, Y., & Zhu, J. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2026.3688650 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Self-citationAgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents
Andriushchenko, M., Souly, A., Dziemian, M., Duenas, D., Lin, M., Wang, J., Hendrycks, D., Zou, A., Kolter, Z., Fredrikson, M., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.09024 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Free-MAD: Consensus-Free Multi-Agent Debate
Cui, Y., Fu, H., Zhang, H., Wang, L., & Zuo, C. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1600 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
ShieldAgent: Shielding Agents via Verifiable Safety Policy Reasoning
Chen, Z., Kang, M., & Li, B. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.22738 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Commercial LLM Agents Are Already Vulnerable to Simple Yet Dangerous Attacks
Li, A., Zhou, Y., Raghuram, V. C., Goldstein, T., & Goldblum, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.08586 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Multi-Agent Systems Execute Arbitrary Malicious Code
Triedman, H., Jha, R., & Shmatikov, V. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.12188
- Authors
- Zhang, B., Tan, Y., Shen, Y., Salem, A., Backes, M., Zannettou, S., & Zhang, Y.
- Affiliations
- Helmholtz Center for Information Security (DE)
- NetApp (United States) (US)
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Delft University of Technology (NL)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2407.20859
- OpenAlex
- W4401203303
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- CISPA Helmholtz Center (cc-by)
- 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 › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- autonomous LLM agents, attack surface analysis, multi-agent systems, vulnerability assessment
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