arXiv subjects

Aaditya Pai

Publications and source records attributed to Aaditya Pai.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

PARSE: Provenance-Aware Retrieval Sanitization for Professional Domain LLM Agents

Prompt injection defenses evaluated on synthetic benchmarks do not generalize to real enterprise documents, which are longer, denser, and interleave legitimate authority language with factual content. We demonstrate this gap with a benchmark of 122 tasks across five professional domains (financial, legal, medical, scientific, DevOps) built on real retrieved documents -- actual SEC filings, Federal Register rules, PubMed abstracts, arXiv papers, and GitHub postmortems -- paired with LLM-generated tasks and camouflaged payloads that were not human-validated. Paraphrasing, the strongest defense on synthetic benchmarks, shows no statistically significant attack success rate reduction on real documents (p=0.500) while degrading utility from 91.8% to 82.8%. We introduce PARSE (Provenance-Aware Retrieval Sanitization), a domain-aware, fact-preserving sanitization pipeline that classifies each sentence by injection likelihood, extracts structured facts before rewriting, and verifies fact preservation via a consistency-checking loop. A directiveness gate routes 59% of real enterprise documents to a lightweight path, concentrating computational cost on high-risk documents. PARSE achieves 15.6% attack success rate -- a 39% reduction versus the 25.4% baseline -- at 86.9% utility, the largest reduction of any condition evaluated (h=-0.245), nominally significant (p=0.014) but not surviving correction for multiple comparisons. Practitioners should evaluate defenses on domain-matched real documents, not synthetic proxies.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating Prompting-Based Defenses Against Domain-Camouflaged Injection Attacks

Domain-camouflaged injection attacks embed malicious instructions in retrieved content using domain-appropriate vocabulary, evading standard detectors that rely on syntactic injection markers. When detection fails, practitioners need to know which defense architectures reduce attack success. We evaluate five prompting-based defenses (spotlighting, paraphrasing, prompt sandwiching, and two combinations) against domain-camouflaged injection across three model families (Claude Haiku, Llama 3.1 8B, Gemini 2.0 Flash) and three deployment domains (financial, legal, general) using 3,510 trials. Paraphrasing retrieved content before agent processing is the most consistently effective defense in this benchmark, reducing camouflage attack success rate by 55-84\% depending on model, and achieves lower attack success rates than our Llama Guard 4 configuration on every model tested. Defense effectiveness is strongly model-dependent: spotlighting halves attack success on Claude Haiku but provides no benefit on Llama 3.1 8B. Financial domain deployments face the highest residual risk at 26-33\% baseline attack success rate, with no prompting-based defense fully eliminating the threat on weaker models. These results provide the first systematic evaluation of prompting-based defenses specifically against camouflage-class injection attacks and establish benchmark-based recommendations for practitioners. All tasks use synthetically constructed professional documents; whether these benchmark rankings generalize to real enterprise documents remains an open question.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Blind Spots in the Guard: How Domain-Camouflaged Injection Attacks Evade Detection in Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Injection detectors deployed to protect LLM agents are calibrated on static, template-based payloads that announce themselves as override directives. We identify a systematic blind spot: when payloads are generated to mimic the domain vocabulary and authority structures of the target document, what we call domain camouflaged injection, standard detectors fail to flag them, with detection rates dropping from 93.8% to 9.7% on Llama 3.1 8B and from 100% to 55.6% on Gemini 2.0 Flash. We formalize this as the Camouflage Detection Gap (CDG), the difference in injection detection rate between static and camouflaged payloads. Across 45 tasks spanning three domains and two model families, CDG is large and statistically significant (chi^2 = 38.03, p < 0.001 for Llama; chi^2 = 17.05, p < 0.001 for Gemini), with zero reverse discordant pairs in either case. We additionally evaluate Llama Guard 3, a production safety classifier, which detects zero camouflage payloads (IDRcamouflage = 0.000), confirming that the blind spot extends beyond few-shot detectors to dedicated safety classifiers. We further show that multi-agent debate architectures amplify static injection attacks by up to 9.9x on smaller models, while stronger models show collective resistance. Targeted detector augmentation provides only partial remediation (10.2% improvement on Llama, 78.7% on Gemini), suggesting the vulnerability is architectural rather than incidental for weaker models. Our framework, task bank, and payload generator are released publicly.

cs.CR↗