USENIX Security2026Top-tier venue
Context Contamination in LLM Analysis of Network Security Logs: Poison with Passive Prompt Injection and Mitigation Evaluation
Rabimba Karanjai, Yang Lu, Hemanth Hegadehalli Madhavarao, Lei Xu, Weidong Shi
Abstract
Large Language Models are increasingly deployed in Security Operations Centers for log analysis tasks including summarization, alert triage, and threat investigation. These systems ingest logs from external-facing services and process network logs as natural language contexts to generate security insights. We demonstrate that this architectural pattern introduces a critical vulnerability: adversaries can embed prompt injection payloads in log-generating fields that persist in storage and are executed when analysts query the LLM, achieving what we term passive prompt injection. We present LogInject, a systematic framework for evaluating these threats. Using LogInject-1.0, a benchmark of 12,847 log entries including 2,569 adversarial samples, we evaluate three production LLMs across four attack objectives: activity concealment, false positive generation, information exfiltration, and output hijacking. Our findings reveal an up to 88.2% attack success rate (83.4% average across models) under the baseline conditions. We introduce Context Stitching, a novel technique that fragments payloads across multiple log entries to evade stateless filters while exploiting LLM long-context reasoning, achieving a 76.4% success rate. As mitigation, we evaluate layered defenses by combining input filtering, prompt hardening, and output validation, demonstrating a 90.4% attack reduction, although 8.4% residual vulnerability persists. Our results establish that LLM-based log analysis creates an inherent confused deputy vulnerability where untrusted data and trusted instructions compete indistinguishably for model attention, requiring defense in-depth architectures and continued human oversight for security-critical decisions.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 41311d60-ce9c-4fbc-b301-7a6fbacb0187Builds on12
- Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?Alexander Wei, Nika Haghtalab, Jacob SteinhardtNeurIPS 2023 · 2,230 citations
- DeepLog: Anomaly Detection and Diagnosis from System Logs through Deep LearningMin Du, Feifei Li, Guineng Zheng, Vivek SrikumarCCS 2017 · 1,823 citations
- Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and DefensesYupei Liu, Yuqi Jia, Runpeng Geng, Jinyuan Jia et al.USENIX Security 2024 · 308 citations
- Red Teaming Language Models with Language ModelsEthan Perez, Saffron Huang, H. Francis Song, Trevor Cai et al.EMNLP 2022 · 239 citations
- Optimization-based Prompt Injection Attack to LLM-as-a-JudgeJiawen Shi, Zenghui Yuan, Yinuo Liu, Yue Huang et al.CCS 2024 · 33 citations
Related papers
- ChatInject: Abusing Chat Templates for Prompt Injection in LLM AgentsHwan Chang, Yonghyun Jun, Hwanhee LeeICLR 2026 · 32 citations
- Tensor Trust: Interpretable Prompt Injection Attacks from an Online GameSam Toyer, Olivia Watkins, Ethan Adrian Mendes, Justin Svegliato et al.ICLR 2024 · 123 citations
- Evaluating the Instruction-Following Robustness of Large Language Models to Prompt InjectionZekun Li, Baolin Peng, Pengcheng He, Xifeng YanEMNLP 2024 · 15 citations
- Security–Fidelity Tradeoffs: No Universal Defense Against Prompt InjectionMitchell Hermon, Rahul Gupta, Weitong Ruan, Ekraam Sabir et al.ICML 2026
- SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference OptimizationSizhe Chen, Arman Zharmagambetov, Saeed Mahloujifar, Kamalika Chaudhuri et al.CCS 2025 · 1 citation
