The DOI matches its DataCite record.
The Promptware Kill Chain: How Prompt Injections Gradually Evolved Into a Multistep Malware Delivery Mechanism
Open accessAbstract
Prompt injection was initially framed as the large language model (LLM) analogue of SQL injection. However, over the past three years, attacks labeled as prompt injection have evolved from isolated input-manipulation exploits into multistep attack mechanisms that resemble malware. In this paper, we argue that prompt injections evolved into promptware, a new class of malware execution mechanism triggered through prompts engineered to exploit an application's LLM. We introduce a seven-stage promptware kill chain: Initial Access (prompt injection), Privilege Escalation (jailbreaking), Reconnaissance, Persistence (memory and retrieval poisoning), Command and Control, Lateral Movement, and Actions on Objective. We analyze thirty-six prominent studies and real-world incidents affecting production LLM systems and show that at least twenty-one documented attacks that traverse four or more stages of this kill chain, demonstrating that the threat model is not merely theoretical. We discuss the need for a defense-in-depth approach that addresses all stages of the promptware life cycle and review relevant countermeasures for each step. By moving the conversation from prompt injection to a promptware kill chain, our work provides analytical clarity, enables structured risk assessment, and lays a foundation for systematic security engineering of LLM-based systems.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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 Promptware Kill Chain formalizes seven-stage attack propagation.
“The Promptware Kill Chain [10] formalizes sevenstage attack propagation.”
From SentinelAgent: Intent-Verified Delegation Chains for Securing Federal Multi-Agent AI Systems (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI Agents Enable Adaptive Computer Worms
Guan, J., Blanchard, T., Foerster, H., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.03811 · Cited by 5
“Nassi et al. [2026] formalise this broader class as promptware : attacks in which prompt injection functions as part of a malware-like kill chain across AI applications, users, tools, and memory systems.”
Linguistic Firewall: Geometry as Defense in Multi-Agent Systems Routing
Alsheich, D., Peleg, A., Hagag, B., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.30555 · Cited by 1
“However, this reliance on description-based routing creates a critical vulnerability to Router Hijacking , where adversarial instructions embedded in an agent’s description steer the router to call malicious agents (Nassi et al., 2026).”
HubScan: Detecting Hubness Poisoning in Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
Habler, I., Narajala, V. S., Koren, S., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.22427
“• The Promptware Kill Chain : Recent research by [10] formalizes these exploits as part of a multi-step malware lifecycle.”
Self-State Attacks on Self-Hosted AI Agents: How Far Can OS Defenses Go?
Chen, Y.-M., Denis, N., Pietro, R. D., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.17986
“Real-world incidents and recent studies further highlight the severity of these risks [5,16,44].”
Spira, A., Cohen, S., Feldman, E., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.07433
“In parallel with their growing adoption (see [15] and the references within), recent research has highlighted a new class of threats known as Promptware [20].”
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Brodt, O., Feldman, E., Schneier, B., & Nassi, B.
- Affiliations
- Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
- John F. Kennedy University (US)
- Tel Aviv University (IL)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2601.09625
- OpenAlex
- W7124325415
- Semantic Scholar
- 88ee88a0da1d1a8bacf04bf4dc85be0ed7f7995a
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- 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 › Information Systems › Web Application Security Vulnerabilities
- Keywords
- prompt injection, large language model security, kill chain, jailbreaking, privilege escalation, lateral movement, command and control, defense-in-depth
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