AI & ML
Ignored, Not Refused: What Low Prompt-Injection Success Rates Hide in Small Tool-Using Agents
arXiv cs.CR0 views
arXiv:2610.23254v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using agents read untrusted external content, which exposes them to indirect prompt injection (IPI), where hidden instructions hijack the agent's tool calls. Benchmarks measure IPI security by the attack success rate (ASR), which treats every failed attack as a successful defense. To test this assumption, we audit 33,000 trajectories from eleven open-weight agents (2-14B parameters) on InjecAgent and AgentDojo. A label-blind LLM judge shows that most failed attacks are ignored (76-80%) rather than refused (17-18%). With identical model weights, changing only the system prompt shifts InjecAgent ASR from 0.2% to 43%. Our Attack-Task Outcome Matrix (ATOM) further shows that in 21.7% of AgentDojo episodes, the agent stayed safe but did not complete the user's task. A low ASR therefore mostly reflects agents silently ignoring injections, not refusing them. Evaluations should report how attacks fail and whether the user's task is completed, alongside ASR. We release the labeled corpus, judge prompt, and analysis code.
Source:https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.23254PreviousConcrete Functions in Private Simultaneous Quantum Messages: Quantum Advantages and Structural LimitationsNextMonitor-Validity Failures: LLM Safety Evidence Paths at Evolving Framework Boundaries
Related posts

What Arconatese 3-4 Pontedera tells us about Serie D - Girone D
0dev.to Watercooler
Your AI agent got an HTTP error. Should it retry?
0dev.to Discuss
Is AI dangerous, or just misunderstood?
0dev.to Discuss
Why we price a developer tool per fix instead of per seat
0dev.to Productivity
My LLM-Powered Sidekick for Painless PR Descriptions
0dev.to Productivity
Reward-Adaptive Backtracking GFlowNet: A Technique Worth Understanding
0dev.to Productivity