大模型对齐与安全

AI agents such as OpenClaw are increasingly deployed in local workflows with access to external tools. This creates indirect prompt-injection (IPI) risk: an agent may execute harmful instructions embedded in untrusted inputs such as email, downloaded files, webpages, repositories, or group-chat messages. Existing evaluations are often small, purely simulated, or focused on a narrow set of channels. We introduce LivePI (Live Prompt Injection), a structured benchmark for IPI risk in a production-like but test-controlled environment. LivePI covers seven input surfaces, twelve attack/rendering families, and five malicious goals, including protected-information exfiltration, unauthorized security-control changes, unsafe code retrieval or execution, inbox-summary exfiltration, and cryptocurrency transfer. We run LivePI on a real virtual machine with live but test-controlled email, chat, web, local-file, repository, and wallet interfaces. Across GPT-5.3-Codex, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5, and GLM-5, total attack success rates range from 10.7% to 29.6%. Group-chat injection is uniformly successful across the evaluated backbones in our deployment, and repository-link attacks produce high-severity failures despite a small denominator. We also evaluate a two-layer defense consisting of prompt-level filtering and pre-execution tool-call authorization. In the GPT-5.3-Codex setting, the defense intercepts all tested malicious-goal completions in LivePI before execution while preserving benign utility on PinchBench-derived workloads.

Risk-Aware Causal Gating (RACG) defends tool-augmented LLM agents against indirect prompt injection by removing dangerous tools from the agent's visible action space, so that even a fully injection-compliant agent cannot call a tool it cannot see. We make three points. First, this structural guarantee does not eliminate the trust assumption behind safe tool use; it relocates it into the integrity of the tool contracts -- declared preconditions, effects, risk, and authorization -- that the gate reads, so an attacker who corrupts a contract can make the gate mis-decide without ever persuading the agent. Second, forging a tool's effects is strictly more dangerous than tampering with its risk label, because RACG applies a causal gate before its admissibility gate: an off-path tool is never exposed, so risk-relabeling alone fails, whereas effect forgery routes the dangerous tool onto the causal path and succeeds. Effect integrity, not the risk label, is the load-bearing assumption. Third, we introduce ContractGuard, a verifier between the registry and the gate that layers signed provenance, typed contract attestation, and runtime effect verification; on a controlled benchmark it restores injection success to zero against every modeled attack -- including an exhaustive white-box adaptive attacker -- without over-rejecting honest contracts, and the structural prediction is confirmed on six current-generation hosted models (Claude Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6, Haiku 4.5; Amazon Nova Premier and Nova 2 Lite; GPT-OSS-120B).

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.

Code large language models increasingly retrieve external code context from repositories, documentation, issue threads, and coding-agent environments, creating an indirect prompt-injection surface where attackers hide instructions in comments, strings, identifiers, or decoy code. We propose CodeSentinel, a three-layer inference-time sanitizer. It uses Tree-sitter to extract high-risk model-facing CST nodes, then combines syntax-guided pre-filtering, CST-guided Dynamic Min-K\% scoring, and node perturbation analysis to detect adversarial and natural-looking semantic triggers. Detected nodes are removed or neutralized before reaching the downstream Code LLM. Across six recent attack families, \CodeSentinel achieves 0.80 average node-level F1, outperforming CodeGarrison, DePA, and KillBadCode.