Misinformation detectors often rely on superficial cues (i.e., shortcuts) that correlate with misinformation in training data but fail to generalize to the diverse and evolving nature of real-world misinformation. This issue is exacerbated by large language models (LLMs), which can easily generate convincing misinformation using simple prompts. We introduce TRUTHOVERTRICKS, a unified evaluation paradigm for measuring shortcut learning in misinformation detection. TRUTHOVERTRICKS categorizes shortcut behaviors into intrinsic shortcut induction and extrinsic shortcut injection, and evaluates seven representative detectors across 14 popular benchmarks, along with two new factual misinformation datasets, NQ-Misinfo and Streaming-Misinfo. Empirical results reveal that existing detectors suffer severe performance degradation when exposed to both naturally occurring and adversarially crafted shortcuts. To address this, we propose the Shortcut Mitigation Framework (SMF), an LLM-augmented data augmentation framework that mitigates shortcut reliance through paraphrasing, factual summarization, and sentiment normalization. SMF consistently enhances robustness across 16 benchmarks, forcing models to rely on deeper semantic understanding rather than shortcut cues.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly central to agentic systems due to their strong reasoning and planning capabilities. By interacting with external environments through predefined tools, these agents can carry out complex user tasks. Nonetheless, this interaction also introduces the risk of prompt injection attacks, where malicious inputs from external sources can mislead the agent's behavior, potentially resulting in economic loss, privacy leakage, or system compromise. System-level defenses have recently shown promise by enforcing static or predefined policies, but they still face two key challenges: the ability to dynamically update security rules and the need for memory stream isolation. To address these challenges, we propose DRIFT, a Dynamic Rule-based Isolation Framework for Trustworthy agentic systems, which enforces both control-and data-level constraints. ASecure Planner first constructs a minimal function trajectory and a JSON-schema-style parameter checklist for each function node based on the user query. ADynamic Validator then monitors deviations from the original plan, assessing whether changes comply with privilege limitations and the user's intent. Finally, an Injection Isolator detects and masks any instructions that may conflict with the user query from the memory stream to mitigate long-term risks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for diverse applications. However, their uniform token processing paradigm introduces critical vulnerabilities in instruction handling, particularly when exposed to adversarial scenarios. In this work, we identify and propose a novel class of vulnerabilities, termed Tool-Completion Attack (TCA), which exploits function-calling mechanisms to subvert model behavior. To evaluate LLM robustness against such threats, we introduce the Tool-Completion benchmark, a comprehensive security assessment framework, which reveals that even state-of-the-art models remain susceptible to TCA, with surprisingly high attack success rates. To address these vulnerabilities, we introduce Context-Aware Hierarchical Learning (CAHL), a sophisticated mechanism that dynamically balances semantic comprehension with role-specific instruction constraints. CAHL leverages the contextual correlations between different instruction segments to establish a robust, context-aware instruction hierarchy. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CAHL significantly enhances LLM robustness against both conventional attacks and the proposed TCA, exhibiting strong generalization capabilities in zero-shot evaluations while still preserving model performance on generic tasks. Our code is available at https://github.com/S2AILab/CAHL.

Autonomous UI agents powered by AI have tremendous potential to boost human productivity by automating routine tasks such as filing taxes and paying bills. However, a major challenge in unlocking their full potential is security, which is exacerbated by the agent's ability to take action on their user's behalf. Existing tests for prompt injections in web agents either over-simplify the threat by testing unrealistic scenarios or giving the attacker too much power, or look at single-step isolated tasks. To more accurately measure progress for secure web agents, we introduce WASP--a new publicly available benchmark for end-to-end evaluation of Web Agent Security against Prompt injection attacks. Evaluating with WASP shows that even top-tier AI models, including those with advanced reasoning capabilities, can be deceived by simple, low-effort human-written injections in very realistic scenarios. Our end-to-end evaluation reveals a previously unobserved insight: while attacks partially succeed in up to 86% of the case, even state-ofthe-art agents often struggle to fully complete the attacker goals--highlighting the current state of security by incompetence.

Wehavetried using the same number of layers for GRAND/BLEND as in their paper.However, the test clean accuracy is low. For example, grb-cora [7] has node feature size of 302 while the original Cora dataset has node feature size of 1433.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for diverse applications. However, their uniform token processing paradigm introduces critical vulnerabilities in instruction handling, particularly when exposed to adversarial scenarios. In this work, we identify and propose a novel class of vulnerabilities, termed Tool-Completion Attack (TCA), which exploits function-calling mechanisms to subvert model behavior. To evaluate LLM robustness against such threats, we introduce the Tool-Completion benchmark, a comprehensive security assessment framework, which reveals that even state-of-the-art models remain susceptible to TCA, with surprisingly high attack success rates. To address these vulnerabilities, we introduce Context-Aware Hierarchical Learning (CAHL), a sophisticated mechanism that dynamically balances semantic comprehension with role-specific instruction constraints. CAHL leverages the contextual correlations between different instruction segments to establish a robust, context-aware instruction hierarchy. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CAHL significantly enhances LLM robustness against both conventional attacks and the proposed TCA, exhibiting strong generalization capabilities in zero-shot evaluations while still preserving model performance on generic tasks. Our code is available at https://github.com/S2AILab/CAHL.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed in real-world applications, but their flexibility exposes them to prompt injection attacks. These attacks leverage the model's instruction-following ability to make it perform malicious tasks. Recent work has proposed JATMO, a task-specific fine-tuning approach that trains non-instruction-tuned base models to perform a single function, thereby reducing susceptibility to adversarial instructions. In this study, we evaluate the robustness of JATMO against HOUYI, a genetic attack framework that systematically mutates and optimizes adversarial prompts. We adapt HOUYI by introducing custom fitness scoring, modified mutation logic, and a new harness for local model testing, enabling a more accurate assessment of defense effectiveness. We fine-tuned LLaMA 2-7B, Qwen1.5-4B, and Qwen1.5-0.5B models under the JATMO methodology and compared them with a fine-tuned GPT-3.5-Turbo baseline. Results show that while JATMO reduces attack success rates relative to instruction-tuned models, it does not fully prevent injections; adversaries exploiting multilingual cues or code-related disruptors still bypass defenses. We also observe a trade-off between generation quality and injection vulnerability, suggesting that better task performance often correlates with increased susceptibility. Our results highlight both the promise and limitations of fine-tuning-based defenses and point toward the need for layered, adversarially informed mitigation strategies.

Indirect prompt injection attacks (IPIAs), where large language models (LLMs) follow malicious instructions hidden in input data, pose a critical threat to LLMpowered agents. In this paper, we present IntentGuard, a general defense framework based on instruction-following intent analysis. The key insight of Intent-Guard is that the decisive factor in IPIAs is not the presence of malicious text, but whether the LLM intends to follow instructions from untrusted data. Building on this insight, IntentGuard leverages an instruction-following intent analyzer (IIA) to identify which parts of the input prompt the model recognizes as actionable instructions, and then flag or neutralize any overlaps with untrusted data segments. To instantiate the framework, we develop an IIA that uses three "thinking intervention" strategies to elicit a structured list of intended instructions from reasoning-enabled LLMs. These techniques include start-of-thinking prefilling, end-of-thinking refinement, and adversarial in-context demonstration. We evaluate IntentGuard on two agentic benchmarks (AgentDojo and Mind2Web) using two reasoning-enabled LLMs (Qwen-3-32B and gpt-oss-20B). Results demonstrate that IntentGuard achieves (1) no utility degradation in all but one setting and (2) strong robustness against adaptive prompt injection attacks (e.g., reducing attack success rates from 100% to 8.5% in a Mind2Web scenario). Indirect prompt injection attacks (IPIAs) (Greshake et al., 2023), where large language models (LLMs) follow malicious instructions hidden in the input data, have emerged as a top security concern for LLM-powered agents. Although many defenses have been proposed, each faces fundamental limitations. Finetuning-based defenses (Chen et al., 2024; 2025b) are costly and lack interpretability; auxiliary classifiers for IPIA detection Shi et al. (2025); Hung et al. (2024) often fail to generalize and are vulnerable to adaptive attacks; system-level rule enforcement Debenedetti et al. (2025) can impact agent utility while offering little robustness against attacks that do not alter control and data flows (e.g., injecting misinformation or phishing links into an email summary). In this paper, we approach the prompt injection problem from a new perspective: instruction-following intent analysis. For an LLM to effectively follow instructions, it must have an internal mechanism to decide which parts of a prompt it recognizes as actionable instructions.

Large language models are increasingly used for text classification tasks such as sentiment analysis, yet their reliance on natural language prompts exposes them to prompt injection attacks. In particular, class-directive injections exploit knowledge of the model's label set (e.g., positive vs. negative) to override its intended behavior through adversarial instructions. Existing defenses, such as detection-based filters, instruction hierarchies, and signed prompts, either require model retraining or remain vulnerable to obfuscation. This paper introduces Label Disguise Defense (LDD), a lightweight and model-agnostic strategy that conceals true labels by replacing them with semantically transformed or unrelated alias labels(e.g., blue vs. yellow). The model learns these new label mappings implicitly through few-shot demonstrations, preventing direct correspondence between injected directives and decision outputs. We evaluate LDD across nine state-of-the-art models, including GPT-5, GPT-4o, LLaMA3.2, Gemma3, and Mistral variants, under varying few-shot and an adversarial setting. Our results show that the ability of LDD to recover performance lost to the adversarial attack varies across models and alias choices. For every model evaluated, LDD is able to restore a portion of the accuracy degradation caused by the attack. Moreover, for the vast majority of models, we can identify more than one alias pair that achieves higher accuracy than the under-attack baseline, in which the model relies solely on few-shot learning without any defensive mechanism. A linguistic analysis further reveals that semantically aligned alias labels(e.g., good vs. bad) yield stronger robustness than unaligned symbols(e.g., blue vs. yellow). Overall, this study demonstrates that label semantics can serve as an effective defense layer, transforming meaning itself into a shield against prompt injection.

Large Language Models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to prompt injection attacks, representing the most significant security threat in production deployments. We present Prompt Fencing, a novel architectural approach that applies cryptographic authentication and data architecture principles to establish explicit security boundaries within LLM prompts. Our approach decorates prompt segments with cryptographically signed metadata including trust ratings and content types, enabling LLMs to distinguish between trusted instructions and untrusted content. While current LLMs lack native fence awareness, we demonstrate that simulated awareness through prompt instructions achieved complete prevention of injection attacks in our experiments, reducing success rates from 86.7% (260/300 successful attacks) to 0% (0/300 successful attacks) across 300 test cases with two leading LLM providers. We implement a proof-of-concept fence generation and verification pipeline with a total overhead of 0.224 seconds (0.130s for fence generation, 0.094s for validation) across 100 samples. Our approach is platform-agnostic and can be incrementally deployed as a security layer above existing LLM infrastructure, with the expectation that future models will be trained with native fence awareness for optimal security. Keywords: Large Language Models, Prompt Injection, Cryptographic Security, Trust Boundaries, LLM Security Note: The experiments described in this paper were conducted in October 2025. This paper was written and submitted in November 2025.