跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.16158 · v1

PolicySniff: Inferring Agent Policy States through Shared-GPU Execution

首次提交 2026-11-12 09:42
版本更新 2026-11-12 09:42
雷达观测 2026-11-13 14:16
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

LLM agents apply approval settings, such as whether to ask before a consequential tool call, through instructions in their system prompt, and operators keep these settings confidential by restricting access to prompts and responses. Audits check whether an agent obeys its setting, not whether a neighboring process can infer which setting is deployed. PolicySniff infers an agent's approval-policy state through shared-GPU execution. A co-resident attacker that knows the candidate settings and the task first profiles both settings, then times only its own GPU kernels while the agent processes the task. The policy prefix is cached before capture, so the attacker observes processing of a task suffix that is identical under both settings. On an eager sparse mixture-of-experts runtime, where each selected expert runs as separate work, a frozen and blinded study identified the deployed setting at 94.17% balanced accuracy on its primary estimand. Across all authorization conditions, accuracy was 88.82% on tasks for which both settings produce the same decision and 91.98% on tasks where they differ. Hardware replays of expert routing show that its temporal density and layer-and-bucket alignment carry the policy information. Behavioral compliance does not imply configuration confidentiality: deployments that keep their approval setting private should measure its distinguishability on the serving runtime and enforce authorization outside the model.

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

目前只收录了一个版本。收录下一版后,可以对照标题、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 · 2026-11-12 09:42 · 最新观测版本

PolicySniff: Inferring Agent Policy States through Shared-GPU Execution

LLM agents apply approval settings, such as whether to ask before a consequential tool call, through instructions in their system prompt, and operators keep these settings confidential by restricting access to prompts and responses. Audits check whether an agent obeys its setting, not whether a neighboring process can infer which setting is deployed. PolicySniff infers an agent's approval-policy state through shared-GPU execution. A co-resident attacker that knows the candidate settings and the task first profiles both settings, then times only its own GPU kernels while the agent processes the task. The policy prefix is cached before capture, so the attacker observes processing of a task suffix that is identical under both settings. On an eager sparse mixture-of-experts runtime, where each selected expert runs as separate work, a frozen and blinded study identified the deployed setting at 94.17% balanced accuracy on its primary estimand. Across all authorization conditions, accuracy was 88.82% on tasks for which both settings produce the same decision and 91.98% on tasks where they differ. Hardware replays of expert routing show that its temporal density and layer-and-bucket alignment carry the policy information. Behavioral compliance does not imply configuration confidentiality: deployments that keep their approval setting private should measure its distinguishability on the serving runtime and enforce authorization outside the model.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗