跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.07222 · v1

SPILLWAY: Separating Target Admission from Sanitization to Defend Tool-Using Agents against Prompt Injection

首次提交 2026-11-05 07:18
版本更新 2026-11-05 07:18
雷达观测 2026-11-06 10:04
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Tool-using agents act on email, files, and payments, so an instruction hidden in a web page or a shared document can make an agent send data or money to an attacker. Many runtime defenses put a language model on the decision that lets an action through, so the decision depends on a model that may read the attacker's text and adds model calls to every step. Provenance defenses keep the model off the final check but need a model to plan or route each task first. Where an action goes can instead be read from the tools' typed returns: an email's sender or a payment's account arrives in a typed field, while injected instructions arrive as free text. SPILLWAY turns this observation into a deterministic floor with no per-task plan. The check admits a call when each target value that appears in tool output but not in the user's task was returned by a read-only tool in a typed field or is covered by a fixed delegation rule. A deterministic sanitizer removes instruction-like regions its fixed rules match before the model reads them and retains the removed spans as evidence, and a local judge may restore a refused call, never one whose target lies in the removed text. Across three backbones, and seven task suites on one of them, no standard templated injection redirects an action to an attacker's target under SPILLWAY, at the highest observed mean utility and composite scores (NRP, ERS) of the defenses we run under that attack. A forged chat template also produces a raw zero, and mean in-scope attack success under a released reinforcement-learning attacker is .007. SPILLWAY reaches this floor with no defense-triggered backbone re-run and almost no added model call. As personal AI agents act on users' email, files, and payments, SPILLWAY gives them an auditable refusal floor on where their actions go that keeps them useful and holds across backbones.

作者备注:An earlier version was accepted at the Third Workshop on Agents in the Wild: Safety, Security, and Beyond (NeurIPS 2026). 16 pages. Project page: https://saintmachines.github.io/spillway/ Code and per-cell results: https://github.com/saintmachines/spillway

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-05 07:18 · 最新观测版本

SPILLWAY: Separating Target Admission from Sanitization to Defend Tool-Using Agents against Prompt Injection

Tool-using agents act on email, files, and payments, so an instruction hidden in a web page or a shared document can make an agent send data or money to an attacker. Many runtime defenses put a language model on the decision that lets an action through, so the decision depends on a model that may read the attacker's text and adds model calls to every step. Provenance defenses keep the model off the final check but need a model to plan or route each task first. Where an action goes can instead be read from the tools' typed returns: an email's sender or a payment's account arrives in a typed field, while injected instructions arrive as free text. SPILLWAY turns this observation into a deterministic floor with no per-task plan. The check admits a call when each target value that appears in tool output but not in the user's task was returned by a read-only tool in a typed field or is covered by a fixed delegation rule. A deterministic sanitizer removes instruction-like regions its fixed rules match before the model reads them and retains the removed spans as evidence, and a local judge may restore a refused call, never one whose target lies in the removed text. Across three backbones, and seven task suites on one of them, no standard templated injection redirects an action to an attacker's target under SPILLWAY, at the highest observed mean utility and composite scores (NRP, ERS) of the defenses we run under that attack. A forged chat template also produces a raw zero, and mean in-scope attack success under a released reinforcement-learning attacker is .007. SPILLWAY reaches this floor with no defense-triggered backbone re-run and almost no added model call. As personal AI agents act on users' email, files, and payments, SPILLWAY gives them an auditable refusal floor on where their actions go that keeps them useful and holds across backbones.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗