CAPTURE: Disentangling Preference Drift from Memory Poisoning in Personalized LLM Agents

Personalized language agents use persistent memory to adapt to users over time, but the same mechanism creates an attack surface. When new information conflicts with stored preferences, an agent must distinguish genuine preference drift from temporary context shifts, ambiguity, or adversarial memory poisoning. We formulate this problem as a continuous-time partially observable decision process over a latent user state and show why rules based only on recency and provenance are insufficient. CAPTURE addresses this ambiguity with a neural differential-equation belief tracker, a multi-timescale memory ledger, uncertainty-triggered clarification, and counterfactual auditing of cited memories. On 480 held-out episodes from 96 users, CAPTURE achieves a 71.5% win rate, compared with 69.3% for an identically supervised baseline and 66.1% for the strongest heuristic baseline. It limits fixed-policy poisoning success to 11.5% while accepting 83.5% of genuine preference updates. Under an adaptive attacker with access to the released weights, attack success rises to 24.7%, exposing a real adaptation-security tradeoff. We further evaluate the frozen system zero-shot on an independently constructed benchmark and replay longitudinal interaction histories from 40 users collected over two to three weeks. These results suggest that modeling preference authenticity explicitly can improve both personalization and robustness in memory-augmented LLM agents.

MEMORY Wins All: Indirect Bias Injection Attacks via Social Media Feeds

Personal AI agents routinely consume external content while performing tasks such as web browsing, email processing, and SNS feed summarization, and they retain selected information or execution results in persistent memory for later use. We show that this ordinary ingestion of external content opens an indirect path for manipulating subsequent agent behavior. Based on this observation, we present IBIA, an Indirect Bias Injection Attack that plants an adversary-aligned stance on a specific topic into a victim agent's memory through external content, without direct access to the agent, its memory, or future user queries. For this, IBIA combines three mechanisms: comment cloaking, which keeps the crafted content consistent with the surrounding discussion, comment watermarking, which enables lightweight identification during curation, and category anchoring, which makes the retained stance salient under later related requests. We evaluate IBIA on BiasBench, a benchmark of 6,000 adversary-crafted social comments and 120 email instances. The watermark-based curation identifies 95.9% of the injected comments. Under the OpenClaw setting, IBIA achieves adversary-aligned response rates (AARs) of 91.2% on average across four downstream tasks, including 86.6% on the frontier GPT-5.5. We further propose a memory boundary defense that detects the injected bias and reduces AARs to 80.6%.

Utility Under Attack: Agent Memory Poisoning and the Limits of Content Screening and Provenance Ranking

Persistent memory makes false information durable: once a false statement is stored, it can be retrieved into future sessions that match it. We measure the cost of this failure mode using plainly worded false assertions generated in a single pass, with no instruction, trigger, or retriever optimization. Poisoning 1.2% of a LongMemEval corpus reduces accuracy from 0.850 to 0.300. A four-stage write-time screening pipeline that reaches 0.832 recall on indirect prompt injection while flagging 1.5% of trigger-word-laden benign text rejects 0 of 360 poisoned memories. We argue this exposes a boundary of content-only screening: distinguishing a false assertion from a true one generally requires external grounding beyond the text itself. We then evaluate provenance-weighted retrieval. The shipped weight is statistically indistinguishable from no defense (p=0.80), while a stronger weight recovers utility only by excluding untrusted content. In a mixed-provenance corpus where untrusted content is mostly benign, accuracy rises from 0.3167 to 0.7000; when the answer-bearing evidence itself arrives untrusted, evidence recall falls to zero and accuracy to 0.0417. Under the measured similarity regime, the additive provenance term has no usable setting: a weight strong enough to resist query-shaped poison is also strong enough to suppress legitimate untrusted evidence. We therefore argue for bounded occupancy constraints at retrieval rather than additive provenance penalties, and release the harnesses, corpora, and aggregate run reports.

MAFIA: Query-Only Memory Attacks via Probing and Factual Injection against Audited LLM Agents

Memory-augmented LLM agents rely on rich context for long-horizon reasoning and acting, yet their memory modules expose a persistent attack surface for malicious records, making the study of memory poisoning threats imperative. However, existing query-only attacks often fail to remain effective in two realistic and prevalent settings: large-scale benign memory pools and active input auditing. Consequently, current approaches fall short when facing the dual challenges of high retrieval competitiveness and rigorous semantic checks. To overcome these limitations, we propose MAFIA, a query-only Memory Attack framework via probing and Factual Injection against Audit, tailored to this extended threat model. Specifically, MAFIA introduces: (1) a placement strategy that ensures retrieval-competitive injection via memory probing, budget allocation, and scheduling; and (2) a payload design that bypasses audits using compact factual cloaks, preserving malicious effects while maintaining high semantic similarity. Extensive evaluations reveal that MAFIA achieves up to a 90.7% attack success rate while suppressing audit detection from a peak of 83.3% to at most 7.4%, exposing critical vulnerabilities across agentic memory systems. Code will be made publicly available at https://github.com/JiamingChen1234/MAFIA.

Salami Attack: Stealthy Collusive Memory Poisoning against OpenClaw

Long-term memory enables LLM agents to retain useful information across sessions, but also creates an attack surface through which adversaries may poison an agent's persistent memory to steer its behavior. Existing memory poisoning attacks mainly rely on individually malicious records, overlooking a compositional threat: multiple benign-looking memories may jointly induce unsafe behavior. In this paper, we introduce MemCollusion, an automated red-teaming framework for constructing collusive memory poisoning attacks. MemCollusion applies salami tactics---a strategy that slices an adversarial objective into small, individually innocuous pieces---to generate memory fragments that are individually benign looking but collectively harmful. It constructs memory coalitions using four design constraints, five theory-informed strategies, and a fine-tuned generator. To assess collusive memory poisoning in a realistic cross-session setting, we develop MoltLab, a controlled research reproduction of Moltbook, in which crafted platform content must first be observed and distilled into persistent memory before influencing the agent's behavior in a separate session. We evaluate MemCollusion on OpenClaw using two backbone models across 48 scenarios. Under the strongest memory-saving setting, MemCollusion achieves an average Memory Save Rate of 81.3% and an Attack Success Rate of 75.0%, and remains effective under both benign memory dilution and memory-level defenses.

MemSecBench: Tracking Agent Memory Poisoning from Persistence to Consequence and Repair

Memory systems allow agents to retain and reuse information from past interactions, but they can also let malicious content persist. A malicious instruction crafted by an attacker may be stored in long-term memory, recalled much later, and quietly shape a real action. Recent benchmarks increasingly examine agent memory security, yet few trace the same malicious semantics across persistence, downstream consequences, and selective repair under diverse memory-backend comparisons. To address this gap, we introduce MemSecBench, a task-grounded benchmark for the lifecycle security of agent memory systems. It contains 310 cases drawn from 48 realistic contexts across code and science, daily life, and office work. Each case follows a controlled Write--Execute--Forget protocol in an isolated runtime under an exact agent configuration, defined by an agent harness, a memory backend, and an LLM backend. Evidence-based adjudication combines a deterministic write check, checkpoint-specific judge-model evaluations, and programmatic gates across seven lifecycle checkpoints. The experimental design spans a 24-configuration matrix of two agent harnesses, four memory backends, and three LLM backends. Across all 24 configurations, malicious memory persists in 84.2% of all cases, and the full Write--Execute chain succeeds in 50.3%. Among successfully poisoned cases, 59.6% complete the full Execute chain, while 56.1% achieve selective repair.Compared with matched Native configurations, the largest absolute differences are 16.1 percentage points for end-to-end attack success and 41.3 percentage points for selective repair. These descriptive contrasts indicate that the evaluated memory system stacks differ in lifecycle security, both in the propagation of malicious memory and in selective repair after successful memory poisoning.

Do Agents Dream of False Memories? Black-box Visual Attacks on Long-term Memory in Multimodal AI Agents

Multimodal AI agents increasingly rely on persistent long-term memory to ground generation in past visual and textual episodes. We show that unconditional trust in visual data creates a critical vulnerability. We propose Lucid, a black-box adversarial framework that compromises multimodal memory pipelines under a strictly image-bounded threat model, requiring no access to the target MLLM, target retrieval encoder, or the text channel. Lucid crafts imperceptible perturbations to enable two distinct failure modes based on the availability of historical context: (1) Memory poisoning, an in-context attack where the adversarial image replaces a benign one whose content is reinforced by prior textual context, reliably corrupting visual recall and steering the agent toward attacker-chosen narratives; (2) Memory injection, an out-of-context attack where the adversarial image replaces a benign one in a conversation turn devoid of prior textual grounding, causing the agent to generate attacker-influenced responses with no corrective signal from memory. We evaluate Lucid across various conversation domains and five black-box memory architectures, including graph-structured, LLM-summarized, and commercially deployed systems. Lucid achieves 61.6% ASR on poisoning and 58.4% ASR on injection, exposing a structural vulnerability in multimodal memory pipelines.

MemPoison: Uncovering Persistent Memory Threats and Structural Blind Spots in LLM Agents

Persistent external memory enhances agent continuity but introduces persistent security vulnerabilities: adversarial content can be injected via standard interaction channels, retained across turns, and later distort downstream behavior. To address this challenge, we propose MemPoison, a comprehensive benchmark and analysis framework featuring 1227 hand-validated cases across four attack types, three injection channels, and three representative memory substrates, evaluated on seven open-weight and three closed-weight model families. We introduce a three-tier taxonomy: (L1) direct single-record corruption, (L2) compositional multi-record corruption and (L3) context-triggered dormant corruption. Our evaluations reveal a distinct defense frontier: while baseline write-time defenses, such as consistency checks, substantially suppress direct L1 attacks, they fail to reliably suppress L2 and L3 attacks. Through mechanistic influence decomposition (MID), we demonstrate structural blind spots in write-time defenses, which admit seemingly benign records that later become harmful through joint retrieval composition or trigger-conditioned activation. Our findings advocate for shifting from static filtering to adaptive, context-sensitive memory defense strategies.

When Agents Remember Too Much: Memory Poisoning Attacks on Large Language Model Agents

Personal AI agents powered by large language models can reason and act using available tools to access emails, manage calendars, and push code to remote repositories, all with minimal oversight. When augmented with long-term memory, an agent can recall specific details relevant to the current task, reducing the need for large context windows. Currently, long-term memory agents tend to fall into two distinct domains: conversational and action-planning agents. Personal assistant agents sit at the convergence of these two domains and handle sensitive information while interacting with untrusted information sources, creating previously unaccounted security vulnerabilities. In this work, we introduce the novel attack vector, GhostWriter, which exploits current memory subsystems in tool-using personal agents to poison their memory store. GhostWriter operates in two phases: injection, where an adversary sends a hidden attack payload to the target agent; and activation, in which the poisoned memory is retrieved. We show that GhostWriter achieves near-universal injection rates of approximately 98% and a high average activation rate of approximately 60% against state-of-the-art agents. This attack is possible due to the lack of security-focused memory governance. In response, we propose Agentic Memory Sentry (AM-Sentry), which leverages two mitigation techniques: a memory-saving policy and a memory-retrieval screen. Our experiments show that AM-Sentry dramatically reduces GhostWriter's success rate while preserving agent utility.

Your Agent's Memories Are Not Its Own: Forged Reasoning Attacks on LLM Agent Memory and Defenses

Persistent memory has enabled large language model (LLM) agents to store factual knowledge, prior decisions, reasoning histories, tool usage information, and context. While this has improved the agent's functionality and continuity across tasks, it has also introduced a new attack surface: the agent's own reasoning history. In this paper, we introduce the Forged Amplifying Rationale Memory Attack (FARMA), which poisons an agent's remembered reasoning rather than its factual knowledge. It inserts forged reasoning traces using evasive language that bypasses keyword-based defenses, then amplifies them through self-referential reinforcement that defeats consensus-based defenses. To address FARMA, we introduce SENTINEL, a layered defense pipeline to detect forged reasoning entries. Its central component is the Reasoning Guard that structurally analyzes candidate entries for forgery using five weighted signals. We evaluate FARMA and SENTINEL across multiple agents and different LLM models with 50 trials and show that FARMA achieves an attack success rate of up to 100% under baseline conditions and is capable of defeating defense mechanisms like keyword filter and A-MemGuard. Our evaluation also shows that SENTINEL reduces FARMA's attack success rate to as low as 0% with no false positives observed across 326 benign agent traces. Our work demonstrates the need to protect not only an agent's retrieved content but also the integrity of its reasoning history.

Forensic Trajectory Signatures for Agent Memory Poisoning Detection

We discover a behavioral invariant in LLM agents under persistent memory poisoning: in architectures where routing information is retrieved through observable memory-tool invocations, successful attacks require calling memory_recall_fact before email_send_email, a transition that non-exfiltrating sessions rarely exhibit. Under the evaluated architecture, this invariant follows from the attack's information-retrieval dependency rather than being merely an empirical correlation, and suppressing it breaks the attack. A simple rule exploiting this invariant alone achieves AUC = 0.9563. A Random Forest classifier over 19 trajectory features refines it to AUC = 0.9904 (BCa 95% CI [0.987, 0.993], N=10,000 resamples), demonstrating that the attack imprints on multiple independent behavioral channels. The signature is overdetermined: removing all recall-related features (half the feature set) leaves AUC unchanged at 0.990, confirming that memory poisoning induces a distributed trajectory signature rather than a single observable anomaly. Cross-model hold-out on 9 models (7B-120B parameters) confirms AUC = 1.000 on 6/9 hold-out splits, with all three exceptions mechanistically explained. The invariant generalizes to frontier models (GPT-4.1, GPT-4o) without retraining. A strictly prefix-only variant achieves AUC = 0.934, suggesting that real-time blocking is feasible with moderate degradation. The boundary is forensically useful: prompt-injection attacks that bypass memory produce a distinct trajectory (score = 0.541), enabling incident responders to distinguish memory-channel attacks from prompt-injection attacks using tool-call logs alone.

Manufactured Confidence: How Memory Consolidation Turns Hearsay into Confident Facts

LLM agents carry conclusions across steps and sessions in compressed memory, and memory products (e.g., mem0, LangMem) rewrite conversation into stored "facts" that later steps trust. We show this rewriting manufactures confidence: across our constructed agent settings, a casual, hedged remark becomes a confident, dated assertion the agent then obeys like a verified fact, granting every above-clearance request it faces. No attacker is needed: a role that was true once and never corrected is stored as a flat fact and acted on like a deliberate injection. We then isolate what the agent responds to. It is not the source: attributed, unattributed, and even forged "system of record" claims all grant alike. It is the confidence of the phrasing. A hedge is discounted, a flat assertion is obeyed, and this holds with no special keyword. Not all hedges are equal, though: the evidential register is the least-discounted, with "reportedly" obeyed like a flat assertion on most models. The obvious fixes fail. A passive "unverified" tag is ignored, and an active "do not trust this" instruction escalates even correct memory, so it is safe only by refusing to decide. The real fix lives in the store: keep the tentative phrasing rather than upgrade it. But that is hygiene, not a defense against an attacker who can simply write a confident lie. The deployable lesson is narrower and constructive: a single load-bearing memory is the hazard, and one redundant source restores correct decisions. We release the harness and demonstrations.

Agent-Native Immune System: Architecture, Taxonomy, and Engineering

The transition from static chat bots to autonomous agents--equipped with persistent memory, tool-use protocols, and multi-agent collaboration--has fundamentally expanded the AI threat landscape. Current defense mechanisms, such as perimeter security and training-time alignment, remain external to the agent's active reasoning loop. Consequently, they fall short: a fully aligned agent remains highly vulnerable to runtime hijacking via memory poisoning, tool-chain manipulation, or multi-agent protocol attacks. To address this critical gap, we introduce the Agent-Native Immune System (ANIS), the first biologically inspired, endogenous defense architecture embedded directly within the agent's cognitive loop. Our framework presents four primary contributions. First, we design a six-layer Immune Tower (L0-L5), distinctly incorporating Barrier Immunity (L1) as a non-cognitive, physical-and-logical isolation layer. Second, we establish a unified taxonomy of Agent Viruses and Agent Vaccines, formalizing the critical distinction between superficial non-parametric defenses and robust parametric vaccines. Third, we conceptualize the Harness Triad--Meta, Self, and Auto--a self-monitoring, meta-cognitive automation backbone that drives Continual Immune Learning (CIL), enabling vaccines to dynamically adapt to novel threats. Finally, we establish a rigorous theoretical demarcation between model alignment and agent immunity: while alignment provides a static "constitutional" value foundation during training, ANIS serves as the dynamic "law enforcement" mechanism during runtime. We conclude by framing open challenges for the field, including immune protocol standardization, novel evaluation metrics such as the Autoimmunity Rate (false-positive intervention rate), and the co-evolutionary dynamics between pathogens and vaccines within collective intelligence ecosystems.

When Does Belief-Based Agent Memory Help? Reliability-Conditional Updating and Provenance-Capped Poisoning Defense

We investigate when belief-based memory actually improves large language model (LLM) agents. Our vehicle is Nous, a long-term memory architecture that represents each entity-attribute pair as a categorical probability distribution updated through closed-form Bayesian inference, with information-theoretic surprise driving belief revision and entropy-based forgetting. A controlled ablation on the LoCoMo benchmark shows that Bayesian belief updating alone provides little benefit over naive last-write-wins because existing conversational memory benchmarks rarely contain contradictory or differently reliable evidence. We then introduce reliability-conditioned updating, estimating per-observation reliability from epistemic language, and show on a controlled contradiction benchmark that belief updating substantially outperforms last-write-wins and raw-memory retrieval when observations differ in trustworthiness. Because content-derived reliability is itself vulnerable to manipulation, we further propose provenance-capped belief updating, where trust is bounded by source provenance rather than textual confidence. Under controlled memory-poisoning experiments, this approach resists volumetric poisoning attacks while revealing the utility costs and implementation requirements of provenance-aware memory. Finally, we quantify a 27.5-point discrepancy between strict token-F1 and LLM-as-judge evaluation on identical outputs, highlighting important reproducibility concerns for long-term memory benchmarks. Our results suggest that probabilistic belief-based memory is most beneficial in environments requiring reasoning over conflicting and differently trustworthy evidence, rather than conventional conversational recall alone.

The Containment Gap: How Deployed Agentic AI Frameworks Fail Public-Facing Safety Requirements

Agentic large language model systems that autonomously invoke tools, maintain persistent memory, and execute multi-step plans are increasingly deployed in public-facing domains, including government services, healthcare triage, and financial advising. We ask whether the frameworks used to build these systems provide architectural-level structural safety guarantees. Applying six containment principles derived from a compositional model of agentic architectures, we audit three dominant frameworks (LangChain, AutoGPT, and OpenAI Agents SDK) and find no native compliance in any of them. Memory integrity, a defense against one of the most prevalent vulnerability classes, is not observed in any of the three evaluated frameworks. We validate these findings empirically: in a simulated government benefits agent built on LangChain, a single memory-poisoning write induces persistent targeted corruption across all tested seeds and backends, increasing the wrongful denial rate for targeted applicants to 88.9%. Under a complex five-factor policy, the same attack preserves aggregate accuracy while increasing targeted wrongful denials by 3.5x, rendering the corruption difficult to detect through standard monitoring. We then introduce two lightweight containment mechanisms: a memory integrity validator and a policy gate, which eliminate both attack vectors with sub-millisecond overhead (<0.2ms per call). We conclude that the current agentic framework ecosystem may not yet meet secure-by-default expectations for public-facing deployments and outline priority architectural interventions to enable trustworthy deployment in high-stakes, socially impactful applications.

SMSR: Certified Defence Against Runtime Memory Poisoning in Persistent LLM Agent Systems

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) agents increasingly run with persistent memory that accumulates across user sessions. This creates a new attack surface: an adversary interacting only through normal channels can inject crafted memories that, once retrieved, steer the agent's responses for future users, without touching model weights or code. We call this Multi-Session Memory Poisoning (MSMP) and show that no existing defence certifies against it; static-corpus defences (RobustRAG, ReliabilityRAG) assume a fixed knowledge base, and heuristic filters are bypassed by fluent enterprise-style text. We present Signed Memory with Smoothed Retrieval (SMSR), the first defence with a certified robustness bound for this setting. Component 1 adds HMAC-SHA256 provenance at write time, blocking unsigned injection. Component 2 applies randomised memory ablation with verdict-based majority voting at query time, bounding the influence of authenticated adversaries. We prove that no provenance-free retrieval-time filter can certify against adaptive injection, derive a hypergeometric certificate for Component 2, and formalise the Consistent Minority Effect, whereby a consistent adversarial answer wins string-based voting as a numerical minority while verdict-based voting removes it. Across 15 enterprise scenarios (3,150 repeated trials), Component 1 cuts attack success from 93-100% to 0% for all unsigned variants. For an authenticated adversary with a single injection, Component 2 holds success to 8.0% (95% CI [5.8, 10.9], n=450), below the certified worst case. In an end-to-end query-only attack where the agent itself writes the poison rather than it being pre-seeded, SMSR reduces success from 65.3% to 5.3% (n=150, non-overlapping CIs) on a live agent stack. Clean-query utility is 90% (Component 1) and 85% (combined).

From Untrusted Input to Trusted Memory: A Systematic Study of Memory Poisoning Attacks in LLM Agents

Memory is a core component of AI agents, enabling them to accumulate knowledge across interactions and improve performance. However, persistent memory introduces the risk of memory poisoning, where a single adversarial memory write can exert long-term influence over agent behavior. We present a systematic study of memory poisoning in LLM-based agents. We identify four memory write channels and nine structural vulnerabilities in model capabilities, system prompt design, and agent system architecture that make these channels exploitable. Based on these vulnerabilities, we develop a taxonomy of six classes of memory poisoning attacks. Furthermore, we design MPBench -- a benchmark for evaluating memory poisoning attacks, and show that agents designed to write and retrieve memory more aggressively are more exploitable. We also show that existing prompt injection defenses fail to cover memory poisoning attacks. Our findings provide a foundation for understanding and mitigating memory poisoning attacks against AI agents.

Contextual Agentic Memory is a Memo, Not True Memory

Current agentic memory systems (vector stores, retrieval-augmented generation, scratchpads, and context-window management) do not implement memory: they implement lookup. We argue that treating lookup as memory is a category error with provable consequences for agent capability, long-term learning, and security. Retrieval generalizes by similarity to stored cases; weight-based memory generalizes by applying abstract rules to inputs never seen before. Conflating the two produces agents that accumulate notes indefinitely without developing expertise, face a provable generalization ceiling on compositionally novel tasks that no increase in context size or retrieval quality can overcome, and are structurally vulnerable to persistent memory poisoning as injected content propagates across all future sessions. Drawing on Complementary Learning Systems theory from neuroscience, we show that biological intelligence solved this problem by pairing fast hippocampal exemplar storage with slow neocortical weight consolidation, and that current AI agents implement only the first half. We formalize these limitations, address four alternative views, and close with a co-existence proposal and a call to action for system builders, benchmark designers, and the memory community.