Optimizing Agent Planning for Security and Autonomy
Aashish Kolluri, Rishi Sharma, Manuel Costa, Boris Köpf, Tobias Nießen, Mark Russinovich, Shruti Tople, Santiago Zanella-Béguelin
摘要
Indirect prompt injection attacks threaten AI agents that execute consequential actions, motivating deterministic system-level defenses. Such defenses can provably block unsafe actions by enforcing confidentiality and integrity policies, but currently appear costly: they reduce task completion rates and increase token usage compared to probabilistic defenses. We argue that existing evaluations miss a key benefit of system-level defenses: reduced reliance on human oversight. We introduce autonomy metrics to quantify this benefit: the fraction of consequential actions an agent can execute without human-in-the-loop (HITL) approval while preserving security. To increase autonomy, we design a security-aware agent that (i) introduces richer HITL interactions, and (ii) explicitly plans for both task progress and policy compliance. We implement this agent design atop an existing information-flow control defense against prompt injection and evaluate it on the AgentDojo and WASP benchmarks. Experiments show that this approach yields higher autonomy without sacrificing utility. Introduction AI agents are increasingly used in applications ranging from information retrieval (Anthropic, 2025; OpenAI, 2025b; Perplexity, 2025b) to browser and computer-use (OpenAI, 2025a; Perplexity, 2025a; OpenAI, 2025c). These agents often fetch information from various data sources in order to complete user tasks effectively. However, this reliance on external data sources exposes agents to indirect prompt injection attacks (PIAs) (Greshake et al., 2023; Yi et al., 2025), where malicious actors manipulate data sources to hijack the agents' behavior. The security implications of PIAs are particularly critical in scenarios where AI agents are trusted with handling sensitive information, and can manifest e.g. as publishing malicious patches to software packages or the exfiltration of confidential information. Several probabilistic defenses have been proposed against PIAs, such as model alignment (
问问这篇 Paper
智能体会读完全文。
Lune 把这篇 Paper 索引到了最后一个公式,引用它的顶会 Paper 也一样。你提问,回答直接引用原文。
它引用的顶会 Paper8
- The Attacker Moves Second: Stronger Adaptive Attacks Bypass Defenses Against LLM Jailbreaks and Prompt InjectionsMilad Nasr, Nicholas Carlini, Chawin Sitawarin, Sander V. Schulhoff 等USENIX Security 2026 · 被引用 134 次
- Benchmarking and Defending against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language ModelsJingwei Yi, Yueqi Xie, Bin Zhu, Emre Kiciman 等KDD 2025 · 被引用 27 次
- VisualWebArena: Evaluating Multimodal Agents on Realistic Visual Web TasksJing Yu Koh, Robert Lo, Lawrence Jang, Vikram Duvvur 等ACL 2024 · 被引用 25 次
- SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference OptimizationSizhe Chen, Arman Zharmagambetov, Saeed Mahloujifar, Kamalika Chaudhuri 等CCS 2025 · 被引用 1 次
- ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language ModelsShunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du 等ICLR 2023
相关 Paper
- IPIGuard: A Novel Tool Dependency Graph-Based Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM AgentsHengyu An, Jinghuai Zhang, Tianyu Du, Chunyi Zhou 等EMNLP 2025
- MELON: Provable Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks in AI AgentsKaijie Zhu, Xianjun Yang, Jindong Wang, Wenbo Guo 等ICML 2025
- The Task Shield: Enforcing Task Alignment to Defend Against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM AgentsFeiran Jia, Tong Wu, Xin Qin, Anna Cinzia SquicciariniACL 2025
- AttriGuard: Defeating Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents via Causal Attribution of Tool InvocationsYu He, Haozhe Zhu, Yiming Li, Shuo Shao 等USENIX Security 2026 · 被引用 45 次
- CausalArmor: Efficient Indirect Prompt Injection Guardrails via Causal AttributionMinbeom Kim, Mihir Parmar, Phillip Wallis, Lesly Miculicich 等ICML 2026
