Knowledge Base Regulation Tracker Standards & Frameworks OSS Directory AI Incident Database Research Paper Library Case Studies Society Articles News Jobs About Charter Sign inBecome a Member
Home/Research Paper Library/Structurally Close, Temporally Distant: Measuring Security Exposure in Long-Horizon LLM Agents

Structurally Close, Temporally Distant: Measuring Security Exposure in Long-Horizon LLM Agents

Long-horizon LLM agents interact with untrusted content, persistent memory, external state, and sensitive tools. Existing analyses often characterize attacks by the number of execution steps between malicious input and a downstream action. We show that temporal remoteness can overstate security separation in statef

cs.CRcs.AIcs.CLcs.LG

Abstract

Long-horizon LLM agents interact with untrusted content, persistent memory, external state, and sensitive tools. Existing analyses often characterize attacks by the number of execution steps between malicious input and a downstream action. We show that temporal remoteness can overstate security separation in stateful agents. We introduce a provenance-aware execution graph linking agent events through deterministic state, identifier, and tool provenance, and define \emph{influence distance} $\DI$ as the shortest structural path from an untrusted source to a sensitive action. We compare it with \emph{sequence distance} $\DT$, the shortest injection--sink path in the ordered trajectory. Since the influence graph contains every sequence edge, $\DI \leq \DT$; $\Gap=\DT-\DI$ measures the separation hidden by step count. Across 454 injection--sink pairs from 360 long-horizon AgentDojo trajectories over OpenAI's \texttt{gpt-4o-mini} and \texttt{gpt-4o} and Claude's Haiku 4.5 and Sonnet 4.6, $\Gap>0$ for 96.9% of pairs, with a median gap of 9 hops; 91.0% remain decoupled after removing the largest provenance-only edge class. On AgentDojo's banking suite, 33.8% of 231 pairs from 377 trajectories decouple through different provenance mechanisms. Among 274 OpenAI pairs, $\Gap$ does not independently predict attack success after controlling for $\DT$, attack family, and backend ($β_{\Gap}=0.066$, $p=.088$). At matched thresholds $k=2,3$, a deterministic $\DI$-based pre-execution gate blocks five attack sinks missed by a sequence-only gate with no additional benign blocking, although the paired gain is not significant ($p=.0625$). Execution structure therefore reveals proximity hidden by step count and can support targeted runtime intervention. We measure candidate influence pathways rather than causal attribution.

Sources

Contribute

Spot an error, or know a record we should add? Members can propose additions and submit corrections.