Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.06966

APEX: Active Protection at Execution Boundaries for LLM Agents

Abstract

Indirect prompt injection (IPI) hides adversarial instructions in content that large language model (LLM) agents read at runtime. As agents compose heterogeneous capability units, including Tools, MCP servers, and Skills, the carriers of injection multiply, and defenses built to recognize attack patterns fall behind them. We instead shift defense from covering attack patterns to one stable point: whatever the carrier and however the injection propagates, harm materializes only at the \emph{execution boundary}, where the agent turns internal state into an external action or released output. Safety there turns on two conditions, both settled by the trusted task rather than by the run: whether the proposed effect is authorized, and whether the runtime information reaching it is endorsed by that task. We present APEX, an active defense that enforces both at this boundary from a single authorization contract compiled before untrusted execution: \emph{evidence-gated prevention} admits an effect only when the contract justifies it, while \emph{deception-based exposure} makes unendorsed use reveal itself before the effect commits. Protection therefore follows from what the task permits rather than from how an attack is built, and applies uniformly across capability units without attack-specific policies or taint tracking. Against 13 baselines, APEX attains 0\% attack success on five of six benchmarks and 0.56\% on the sixth, holds 0\% under adaptive attacks on all three capability-unit types, and remains effective across defender backbones. Code is available at https://github.com/ZhengXR930/APEX_official/tree/official.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Xinran Zheng, Xin Fan Guo, Zhiqiang Hao, Fan Yang, Xingzhi Qian, Jiawei Du, Jinfeng Xu, Zheng Xing, Shuo Yang, Xingjun Wang. 2026-10-07. APEX: Active Protection at Execution Boundaries for LLM Agents. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.06966

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Can You Trust the Vectors in Your Vector Database? Black-Hole Attack from Embedding Space Defects

Vector databases serve as the retrieval backbone of modern AI applications, yet their security remains largely unexplored. We propose the Black-Hole Attack, a poisoning attack that injects a small number of malicious vectors near the geometric center of the stored vectors. These injected vectors attract queries like a black hole and frequently appear in the top-k retrieval results for most queries. This attack is enabled by a phenomenon we term centrality-driven hubness: in high-dimensional embedding spaces, vectors near the centroid become nearest neighbors of a disproportionately large number of other vectors, while this centroid region is nearly empty in practice. The attack shows that vectors in a vector database cannot be blindly trusted: geometric defects in high-dimensional embeddings make retrieval inherently vulnerable. Based on this insight, we propose four attack paths tailored to different attacker capabilities. Our experiments show that up to 94.4% of queries are successfully attacked. Additionally, we study two directions of defense: hubness mitigation and detection-based filtering. Hubness mitigation either significantly reduces retrieval accuracy or provides only limited protection, while the detection-based defense is effective against some attack paths but fails against others. A robust and adaptive defense thus remains an open problem, and our findings indicate that vector databases require more careful treatment of security.

cs.CR↗

Anywhere, Any-Stymie: Remote Activation of Trojan Malware on LiDAR with Modulated Signals

LiDAR sensors are widely deployed in autonomous systems for safety-critical 3D perception. We identify a previously unexplored attack surface in which dormant malware, embedded in the LiDAR sensing pipeline, remains inactive during normal operation and is triggered externally after deployment, without access to sensor hardware or networking at attack time. This malware was developed in a closed research test environment with vendor technical support, rather than by exploiting an inherent production supply-chain vulnerability. To trigger the malware, we repurpose the sensor's own native dual-return signal processing as a covert channel for a modulated optical signal delivered into the environment. Once triggered, the malware performs false data injection and suppression on static and mobile platforms. Unlike optical spoofing, where the transmitted signal is itself the attack, here it carries only a small key that the sensor decodes with existing signal processing. We establish feasibility with static triggering at 300~ft and drive-by runs reaching 35 mph, and verify that injected artifacts are taken up as detections by a fine-tuned 3D object detector. On a deployed tactical autonomous vehicle running an unmodified production autonomy stack, we demonstrate both fail-safe and fail-dangerous impact: emergency stop, mission abort, and collision. These results motivate stronger integrity guarantees across LiDAR development and deployment pipelines.

cs.CR↗

VeriRouter: Towards Verifiable LLM Routing

Large language model (LLM) routers are increasingly deployed to optimize quality, latency, and cost through dynamic model selection and request rewriting. However, a compromised router can cause ineligible selection on the control plane, unendorsed rewriting or unfaithful relay on the data plane, undermining LLM routing integrity. We present VeriRouter, a verifiable LLM routing framework. Under an endorsed public context binding a private semantic index and rewrite banks, VeriRouter combines ZK proofs with a provider-issued serving certificate to establish integrity across both planes while keeping the router's private routing assets hidden from clients. For model selection, we design an efficient ZK proof for semantic search. For rewriting, local checks enforce message preservation and additions from committed banks. On real-world workloads, VeriRouter's model-selection and rewrite proofs average 21.92~s and 4.24~s, yielding 1,307$\times$ and 101$\times$ speedups over the fastest completing baselines. Relative to serving without verification, VeriRouter adds only 4.08 s under per-turn selection and 0.11 s under session-pinned selection.

cs.CR↗