PromptArmor: Simple yet Effective Prompt Injection Defenses
Abstract
Despite their potential, recent research has demonstrated that LLM agents are vulnerable to prompt injection attacks, where malicious prompts are injected into the agent's input, causing it to perform an attacker-specified task rather than the intended task provided by the user. In this paper, we present PromptArmor, a simple yet effective defense against prompt injection attacks. Specifically, PromptArmor prompts an off-the-shelf LLM to detect and remove potential injected prompts from the input before the agent processes it. Our results show that PromptArmor can accurately identify and remove injected prompts. For example, using GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, or o4-mini, PromptArmor achieves both a false positive rate and a false negative rate below 1% on the AgentDojo benchmark. Moreover, after removing injected prompts with PromptArmor, the attack success rate drops to below 1%. We also demonstrate PromptArmor's effectiveness against adaptive attacks and explore different strategies for prompting an LLM. We recommend that PromptArmor be adopted as a standard baseline for evaluating new defenses against prompt injection attacks.
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
- Authors
- Shi, T., Zhu, K., Wang, Z., Jia, Y., Cai, W., Liang, W., Wang, H., Alzahrani, H., Lu, J., Kawaguchi, K., Alomair, B., Zhao, X., Wang, W. Y., Gong, N., Guo, W., & Song, D.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2507.15219
- Type
- Preprint
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
