Browser-using agents (BUAs) are an emerging class of autonomous agents that interact with web browsers in human-like ways, including clicking, scrolling, filling forms, and navigating across pages. While these agents help automate repetitive online tasks, they are vulnerable to prompt injection attacks that can trick an agent into performing undesired actions, such as leaking private information or issuing state-changing requests. We propose ceLLMate, a browser-level sandboxing framework that restricts the agent's ambient authority and reduces the blast radius of prompt injections. We address two fundamental challenges: (1) The semantic gap challenge in policy enforcement arises because the agent operates through low-level UI observations and manipulations; however, writing and enforcing policies directly over UI-level events is brittle and error-prone. To address this challenge, we introduce an agent sitemap that maps low-level browser behaviors to high-level semantic actions. (2) Policy prediction in BUAs is the norm rather than the exception. BUAs have no app developer to pre-declare sandboxing policies, and thus, ceLLMate pairs website-authored mandatory policies with an automated policy-prediction layer that adapts and instantiates these policies from the user's natural-language task. We implement ceLLMate as an agent-agnostic browser extension and demonstrate how it enables sandboxing policies that effectively block various types of prompt injection attacks with negligible overhead.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in agentic systems that interact with an external environment; this makes them susceptible to prompt injections when dealing with untrusted data. To overcome this limitation, we propose SIC (Soft Instruction Control)-a simple yet effective iterative prompt sanitization loop designed for tool-augmented LLM agents. Our method repeatedly inspects incoming data for instructions that could compromise agent behavior. If such content is found, the malicious content is rewritten, masked, or removed, and the result is re-evaluated. The process continues until the input is clean or a maximum iteration limit is reached; if imperative instruction-like content remains, the agent halts to ensure security. By allowing multiple passes, our approach acknowledges that individual rewrites may fail but enables the system to catch and correct missed injections in later steps. Although immediately useful, worst-case analysis shows that SIC is not infallible; strong adversary can still get a 15% ASR by embedding non-imperative workflows. This nonetheless raises the bar.

In this work, we show that it is possible to extract significant amounts of alignment training data from a post-trained model -- useful to steer the model to improve certain capabilities such as long-context reasoning, safety, instruction following, and maths. While the majority of related work on memorisation has focused on measuring success of training data extraction through string matching, we argue that embedding models are better suited for our specific goals. Distances measured through a high quality embedding model can identify semantic similarities between strings that a different metric such as edit distance will struggle to capture. In fact, in our investigation, approximate string matching would have severely undercounted (by a conservative estimate of $10\times$) the amount of data that can be extracted due to trivial artifacts that deflate the metric. Interestingly, we find that models readily regurgitate training data that was used in post-training phases such as SFT or RL. We show that this data can be then used to train a base model, recovering a meaningful amount of the original performance. We believe our work exposes a possibly overlooked risk towards extracting alignment data. Finally, our work opens up an interesting discussion on the downstream effects of distillation practices: since models seem to be regurgitating aspects of their training set, distillation can therefore be thought of as indirectly training on the model's original dataset.

How should we evaluate the robustness of language model defenses? Current defenses against jailbreaks and prompt injections (which aim to prevent an attacker from eliciting harmful knowledge or remotely triggering malicious actions, respectively) are typically evaluated either against a static set of harmful attack strings, or against computationally weak optimization methods that were not designed with the defense in mind. We argue that this evaluation process is flawed. Instead, we should evaluate defenses against adaptive attackers who explicitly modify their attack strategy to counter a defense's design while spending considerable resources to optimize their objective. By systematically tuning and scaling general optimization techniques-gradient descent, reinforcement learning, random search, and human-guided exploration-we bypass 12 recent defenses (based on a diverse set of techniques) with attack success rate above 90% for most; importantly, the majority of defenses originally reported near-zero attack success rates. We believe that future defense work must consider stronger attacks, such as the ones we describe, in order to make reliable and convincing claims of robustness.