Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.36108

Log-To-Leak: Prompt Injection Attacks on Tool-Using LLM Agents via the Model Context Protocol

Yuepeng Hu·Chongyu Fan·Sirat Samyoun·Jian Du
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

LLM agents increasingly access external tools through the Model Context Protocol (MCP), but the natural-language metadata used to describe those tools creates a prompt-injection surface. Within this established tool-poisoning surface, we study Log-To-Leak, an additive post-hoc logging attack that induces a separate attacker-controlled call after the final legitimate call. Its payload targets the user query, MCP server name, server response, and agent response. We operationalize the injected directive through Trigger, Tool Binding, Justification, and Pressure, and separately measure call success, payload fidelity, and preservation of legitimate behavior. We evaluate five MCP servers and four LLM agents using five metrics spanning effectiveness, utility, and efficiency. Across 18 model-server pairs with valid tool execution, Log-To-Leak achieves an attack success rate (ASR) of 62.64-100% and conditional logging accuracy (LA) of 76.55-95.64%; 16 pairs have absolute target-task completion changes of at most 6.63 percentage points. Three evaluated defenses leave residual ASR above 55% on GitHub MCP with GPT-4o, while an instruction detector flags 85.53% of benign descriptions. These results show that successful task completion can coexist with unauthorized post-hoc disclosure and motivate host-controlled authorization for secondary tool calls.

Explore related subjects

cs.CRcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yuepeng Hu, Chongyu Fan, Sirat Samyoun, Jian Du. 2026-10-26. Log-To-Leak: Prompt Injection Attacks on Tool-Using LLM Agents via the Model Context Protocol. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36108

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

SoK: Systematizing LLM Prompt Security: Taxonomies, Datasets, and Unified Evaluation of Attacks and Defenses

Prompt-security claims for large language models (LLMs) are often compared as properties of individual attacks or defenses, although measured harmfulness depends on the target model, access setting, attack and defense configuration, prompt sample, and judger. We systematize 272 studies through three linked, multi-label taxonomies of jailbreak attacks, defenses, and model vulnerabilities. To make these dependencies explicit, we introduce an access-compatible evaluation protocol over configured $\langle M,A,D,S,J\rangle$ tuples and instantiate it in PromptSecurity, an open-source platform that records method settings, outputs, judgments, and query costs. We release two complementary datasets: JailbreakDB, with 445,752 jailbreak system-user prompt pairs and 1,094,122 benign prompts, and PromptSecurity-Eval, with 166,200 harmful-query and 25,800 benign-utility output records. We evaluate 11 target models, 20 attacks, nine defenses, and three automated judgers under a matched, single-turn protocol using 100 harmful queries and separate benign-utility tasks. Lower attack success can reflect failure to execute transformed requests rather than stronger safety; attack-category advantages can reverse when one method is excluded, and attack success varies with assistant choice. Defenses can reduce harmful outputs while degrading benign-task utility or causing backfire. Rejudging identical outputs also shows that measured attack success is sensitive to the behavior supplied to the judger, highlighting the need to report judger configurations alongside ASR. These findings motivate configuration-aware reporting rather than context-free method rankings. Resources: https://datasec-lab.github.io/PromptSecurityLeaderboard/ https://huggingface.co/datasets/youbin2014/JailbreakDB https://huggingface.co/datasets/youbin2014/PromptSecurity-Eval https://github.com/datasec-lab/PromptSecurity

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

SELF: A Robust Singular Value and Eigenvalue Approach for LLM Fingerprinting

Safeguarding the Intellectual Property (IP) of Large Language Models (LLMs) against model theft represents a critical challenge in contemporary AI research. Although fingerprinting is essential for establishing forensic evidence for model derivation, existing methods are susceptible to false claim attacks, weight manipulations, or high false positive rates, undermining their utility. To overcome these limitations, we propose SELF, \rev{a novel intrinsic weight-based fingerprinting scheme tailored for robust IP forensics via adversarial model lineage verification}. SELF eliminates dependency on input and inherently resists false claims, achieving robust \rev{provenance detection} through unique, scalable and transformation-invariant fingerprint extraction via singular value and eigenvalue decomposition of LLM attention weights. Experimental results demonstrate that SELF maintains high IP infringement detection accuracy while significantly outperforming state-of-the-art baselines in reducing false positives and showing strong robustness against various downstream modifications, including quantization, pruning, and fine-tuning attacks. Our code is available at https://github.com/HanxiuZhang/SELF_v4.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

What Victims Take Away: Attack Reuse and Defense Revision after Prompt-Injection Attacks

Attack logs and red-team reports show targets the attacks used against them, to help them repair their defenses. Prompt injections against large language models (LLMs) are plain text, so such records also hand targets a working copy. Drawing on social learning theory and work on the victim-offender overlap, we study what targets do with that copy in Tensor Trust, an online game whose players defended LLM-guarded accounts, attacked one another's, and could read every attack they received. Using all 563,349 attack records, we compare each received attack with matched attacks that circulated among similar players at the same moment but never reached the target. Reuse mainly followed success: within a week, targets attacked other players with 10.0% of the attacks that had broken their defense, versus 0.03% of matched attacks (adjusted difference: 8.8-10.0 percentage points). Near-misses, whose replies began with "access granted" but that scored as failures, were reused about as rarely as failures: reuse tracked whether an attack paid off, not how its reply read, consistent with payoff-biased social learning. Breaches were also followed by defense changes, after which same-family attacks became 24.5 percentage points less successful against the target, relative to other defenders. Reuse came mainly from players already attacking, not newcomers. Previously received texts accounted for 23.2% of the successful hijacks we analyze. The attack history thus served both repair and reuse; we derive testable hypotheses for how AI security tools should disclose attacks, such as describing the technique without the full text.

cs.CR↗