Krishnamurthy Dj Dvijotham

AI agents are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks, where malicious instructions embedded in external content or tool outputs cause unintended or harmful behavior. Inspired by the well-established concept of firewalls, we show that a simple, modular and model-agnostic defense operating at the agent--tool interface achieves perfect security (0% or the lowest possible attack success rate) with high utility (task success rate) across four public benchmarks: AgentDojo, Agent Security Bench, InjecAgent and tau-Bench, while achieving a state-of-the-art security-utility tradeoff compared to prior results. Specifically, we employ a defense based on two firewalls: a Tool-Input Firewall (Minimizer) and a Tool-Output Firewall (Sanitizer). Unlike prior complex approaches, this firewall defense makes minimal assumptions on the agent and can be deployed out-of-the-box, while maintaining strong performance without compromising utility. However, our analysis also reveals critical limitations in these existing benchmarks, including flawed success metrics, implementation bugs, and most importantly, weak attacks, hindering significant progress in the field. To foster more meaningful progress, we present targeted fixes to these issues for AgentDojo and Agent Security Bench while proposing best-practices for more robust benchmark design. Further, we demonstrate that although these firewalls push the state-of-the-art on existing benchmarks, it is still possible to bypass them in practice, underscoring the need to incorporate stronger attacks in security benchmarks. Overall, our work shows that existing agentic security benchmarks are easily saturated by a simple approach and highlights the need for stronger agentic security benchmarks with carefully chosen evaluation metrics and strong adaptive attacks.

The practice of fine-tuning AI agents on data from their own interactions--such as web browsing or tool use--, while being a strong general recipe for improving agentic capabilities, also introduces a critical security vulnerability within the AI supply chain. In this work, we show that adversaries can easily poison the data collection pipeline to embed hard-to-detect backdoors that are triggerred by specific target phrases, such that when the agent encounters these triggers, it performs an unsafe or malicious action. We formalize and validate three realistic threat models targeting different layers of the supply chain: 1) direct poisoning of fine-tuning data, where an attacker controls a fraction of the training traces; 2) environmental poisoning, where malicious instructions are injected into webpages scraped or tools called while creating training data; and 3) supply chain poisoning, where a pre-backdoored base model is fine-tuned on clean data to improve its agentic capabilities. Our results are stark: by poisoning as few as 2% of the collected traces, an attacker can embed a backdoor causing an agent to leak confidential user information with over 80% success when a specific trigger is present. This vulnerability holds across all three threat models. Furthermore, we demonstrate that prominent safeguards, including two guardrail models and one weight-based defense, fail to detect or prevent the malicious behavior. These findings highlight an urgent threat to agentic AI development and underscore the critical need for rigorous security vetting of data collection processes and end-to-end model supply chains.

AI agents equipped with tool-calling capabilities are susceptible to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attacks. In this attack scenario, malicious commands hidden within untrusted content trick the agent into performing unauthorized actions. Existing defenses can reduce attack success but often suffer from the over-defense dilemma: they deploy expensive, always-on sanitization regardless of actual threat, thereby degrading utility and latency even in benign scenarios. We revisit IPI through a causal ablation perspective: a successful injection manifests as a dominance shift where the user request no longer provides decisive support for the agent's privileged action, while a particular untrusted segment, such as a retrieved document or tool output, provides disproportionate attributable influence. Based on this signature, we propose CausalArmor, a selective defense framework that (i) computes lightweight, leave-one-out ablation-based attributions at privileged decision points, and (ii) triggers targeted sanitization only when an untrusted segment dominates the user intent. Additionally, CausalArmor employs retroactive Chain-of-Thought masking to prevent the agent from acting on ``poisoned'' reasoning traces. We present a theoretical analysis showing that sanitization based on attribution margins conditionally yields an exponentially small upper bound on the probability of selecting malicious actions. Experiments on AgentDojo and DoomArena demonstrate that CausalArmor matches the security of aggressive defenses while improving explainability and preserving utility and latency of AI agents.