arXiv:2607.27080cs.CRcs.AI2026-07

评测智能体内存中毒从留存到后果再到修复的全生命周期安全

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

论文配图:MemSecBench: Tracking Agent Memory Poisoning from Persistence to Consequence and Repair
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 设计了310个真实场景案例,追踪恶意指令在内存中的持久与执行
  • 84.2%的恶意内容长期留存,50.3%成功完成攻击链,56.1%可实现精准修复
  • 对比24种配置发现内存后端差异显著影响安全性,适合安全研究者参考

内存系统使智能体能保留并复用历史交互信息,但也可能让恶意内容长期留存。攻击者构造的恶意指令可能被存入长期记忆,多年后被调用并悄然引发真实行为。现有基准多关注内存安全,但缺乏对同一恶意语义在持久化、下游后果及选择性修复阶段的完整追踪,尤其在不同内存后端下的比较。为此,我们提出MemSecBench,一个基于任务的智能体内存全生命周期安全基准。它包含来自代码、科学、日常生活和办公场景的48个真实情境,共310个案例。每个案例在隔离运行时中遵循受控的写入-执行-遗忘协议,配置由智能体框架、内存后端和LLM后端决定。证据判定结合确定性写入检查、特定检查点的判别模型评估以及七阶段生命周期的程序化门控。实验涵盖24种配置组合(2个框架×4个内存后端×3个LLM后端)。在所有配置中,恶意内存留存率达84.2%,完整写入-执行链成功率50.3%;其中59.6%成功完成执行链,56.1%实现选择性修复。相较于对应原生配置,最大攻击成功率差异达16.1个百分点,修复能力差异达41.3个百分点。这些对比表明不同内存系统在恶意传播与修复能力上存在显著差异。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

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.

内存安全智能体攻防评测大模型

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。