arXiv subjects

Hend Alzahrani

Publications and source records attributed to Hend Alzahrani.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Understanding and Evaluating Claw-like Agent Security Through a Computer-Systems Lens

Claw-like AI agents (e.g., OpenClaw) are always-on processes with persistent access to credentials, files, tools, and external services. They take on system-level responsibilities -- installing packages, maintaining state, scheduling subtasks, and mediating I/O -- making security failures far more severe than in other agents. Yet existing benchmarks focus on model responses and tool calls, leaving cross-component failure modes largely unmeasured. We adopt a computer-system analogy: treating a Claw-like agent as an agentic computer system whose gateway runtime plays an OS-like mediation role, whose Skills resemble user-installed applications, and whose Plugins resemble loadable extensions with runtime privileges. Each component has a classical counterpart whose protection mechanisms -- refined over decades of cybersecurity research -- are absent on the agent side. From this perspective, we develop SafeClawArena, a benchmark of 406 adversarial tasks across four attack surfaces (Skill Supply-Chain Integrity, Persistent State Exploitation, Cross-Boundary Data Flow, and Indirect Prompt Injection), executed in containerized replicas of real agent platforms with canary-marked credentials and evaluated via automated taint tracking across nine output channels. We evaluate three platforms (OpenClaw, NemoClaw, SeClaw) and five frontier LLMs. The highest attack success rate reaches 70%; malicious Plugins succeed in 100% of cases regardless of the LLM. SeClaw cuts GPT-5.4's attack success rate from 70% to 22%, partly through utility-security tradeoffs rather than active defenses, while Claude-Opus-4.6 already sits near a 22% floor on every platform. These results expose the inadequacy of current defenses and suggest directions for future hardening. Code and data: https://github.com/sunblaze-ucb/SafeClawArena.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

PromptArmor: Simple yet Effective Prompt Injection Defenses

Despite their potential, recent research has demonstrated that LLM agents are vulnerable to prompt injection attacks, where malicious prompts are injected into the agent's input, causing it to perform an attacker-specified task rather than the intended task provided by the user. In this paper, we present PromptArmor, a simple yet effective defense against prompt injection attacks. Specifically, PromptArmor prompts an off-the-shelf LLM to detect and remove potential injected prompts from the input before the agent processes it. Our results show that PromptArmor can accurately identify and remove injected prompts. For example, using GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, or o4-mini, PromptArmor achieves both a false positive rate and a false negative rate below 1% on the AgentDojo benchmark. Moreover, after removing injected prompts with PromptArmor, the attack success rate drops to below 1%. We also demonstrate PromptArmor's effectiveness against adaptive attacks and explore different strategies for prompting an LLM. We recommend that PromptArmor be adopted as a standard baseline for evaluating new defenses against prompt injection attacks.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

PromptShield: Deployable Detection for Prompt Injection Attacks

Application designers have moved to integrate large language models (LLMs) into their products. However, many LLM-integrated applications are vulnerable to prompt injections. While attempts have been made to address this problem by building prompt injection detectors, many are not yet suitable for practical deployment. To support research in this area, we introduce PromptShield, a benchmark for training and evaluating deployable prompt injection detectors. Our benchmark is carefully curated and includes both conversational and application-structured data. In addition, we use insights from our curation process to fine-tune a new prompt injection detector that achieves significantly higher performance in the low false positive rate (FPR) evaluation regime compared to prior schemes. Our work suggests that careful curation of training data and larger models can contribute to strong detector performance.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Can LLMs Ask Good Questions?

We evaluate questions generated by large language models (LLMs) from context, comparing them to human-authored questions across six dimensions: question type, question length, context coverage, answerability, uncommonness, and required answer length. Our study spans two open-source and two proprietary state-of-the-art models. Results reveal that LLM-generated questions tend to demand longer descriptive answers and exhibit more evenly distributed context focus, in contrast to the positional bias often seen in QA tasks. These findings provide insights into the distinctive characteristics of LLM-generated questions and inform future work on question quality and downstream applications.

cs.CL↗