The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Memory Poisoning Attack and Defense on Memory Based LLM-Agents
Open accessAbstract
Large language model agents equipped with persistent memory are vulnerable to memory poisoning attacks, where adversaries inject malicious instructions through query only interactions that corrupt the agents long term memory and influence future responses. Recent work demonstrated that the MINJA (Memory Injection Attack) achieves over 95 % injection success rate and 70 % attack success rate under idealized conditions. However, the robustness of these attacks in realistic deployments and effective defensive mechanisms remain understudied. This work addresses these gaps through systematic empirical evaluation of memory poisoning attacks and defenses in Electronic Health Record (EHR) agents. We investigate attack robustness by varying three critical dimensions: initial memory state, number of indication prompts, and retrieval parameters. Our experiments on GPT-4o-mini, Gemini-2.0-Flash and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct models using MIMIC-III clinical data reveal that realistic conditions with pre-existing legitimate memories dramatically reduce attack effectiveness. We then propose and evaluate two novel defense mechanisms: (1) Input/Output Moderation using composite trust scoring across multiple orthogonal signals, and (2) Memory Sanitization with trust-aware retrieval employing temporal decay and pattern-based filtering. Our defense evaluation reveals that effective memory sanitization requires careful trust threshold calibration to prevent both overly conservative rejection (blocking all entries) and insufficient filtering (missing subtle attacks), establishing important baselines for future adaptive defense mechanisms. These findings provide crucial insights for securing memory-augmented LLM agents in production environments.
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Existing agent safety benchmarks study risks arising from adversarial content, unsafe tool use, compromised extensions, persistent state, and harmful external actions (Zhan et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025a; 2024; Sunil et al., 2026; Xie et al., 2026; Feng et al., 2026).”
From HarnessRisk: A Lifecycle-Oriented Benchmark for Agent Harness Safety (2026) · cites this paper as Sunil et al., 2026
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [2][2] Zhaorun Chen, Zhen Xiang, Chaowei Xiao, Dawn Song, and Bo Li. Agentpoison: Redteaming llm agents via poisoning memory or knowledge bases. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:130185-130213, 2024. -
- [4][4] Shen Dong, Shaochen Xu, Pengfei He, Yige Li, Jiliang Tang, Tianming Liu, Hui Liu, and Zhen Xiang. A practical memory injection attack against llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03704 , 2025. - · arXiv
- [6][6] Changmin Lee and Sooel Son. Adcpg: Classifying javascript code property graphs with explanations for ad and tracker blocking. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , page 3505-3518, 2023. -
- [15][15] Hanrong Zhang, Jingyuan Huang, Kai Mei, Yifei Yao, Zhenting Wang, Chenlu Zhan, Hongwei Wang, and Yongfeng Zhang. Agent security bench (ASB): Formalizing and benchmarking attacks and defenses in LLM-based agents. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2025. -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Louck, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.24322 · Cited by 28
“A fast-growing line of work strengthens the attack side, including memory poisoning with paired defenses on memory-based agents [30], stealthy memory corruption in recommender agents (DrunkAgent [31]), and query-only injection (MINJA [9]).”
SMSR: Certified Defence Against Runtime Memory Poisoning in Persistent LLM Agent Systems
Sharma, T. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.12703 · Cited by 8
HarnessRisk: A Lifecycle-Oriented Benchmark for Agent Harness Safety
Bai, Y., Duan, J., Peng, J., Wu, X., Liu, S., Wang, S., & Chen, T. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.17597
Metadata
- Authors
- Sunil, B. D., Sinha, I., Maheshwari, P., Todmal, S., Mallik, S., & Mishra, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2601.05504
- OpenAlex
- W7123280946
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- 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 › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Keywords
- LLM agents, persistent memory, attack robustness, defense mechanisms, trust evaluation, temporal decay, MIMIC-III, clinical data security
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Memory Poisoning Attack and Defense on Memory Based LLM-Agents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2601.05504
- The paper
- Sunil, B. D., Sinha, I., Maheshwari, P., Todmal, S., Mallik, S., & Mishra, S. (2026). Memory Poisoning Attack and Defense on Memory Based LLM-Agents. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2601.05504