Securing LLM-Agent Long-Term Memory Against Poisoning: Non-Malleable, Origin-Bound Authority with Machine-Checked Guarantees
About
LLM agents increasingly rely on persistent long-term memory, which creates a critical vulnerability that we study here: memory poisoning. An adversary can store untrusted content in one session that later steers a consequential action, such as a payment, a setting change, or data exfiltration, in a future session. Existing defenses base a memory item's authority to act on either its content (detection or trust-scoring) or its derivation history (lineage). We show that both signals are malleable. An attacker can launder an untrusted origin through three channels specific to LLM agents: the agent's own summarization, a trusted-tool echo, and manufactured corroboration. Each makes the content look benign and breaks or flips its derivation edge to ``trusted.'' We formalize malleability for the memory write-retrieve-act pipeline and prove a machine-checked separation theorem. No content- or lineage-based defense is sound under laundering (T1), write-time origin binding is necessary (T2), and non-malleable origin-bound authority with Sybil-resistant corroboration-gated elevation is sufficient (T3). Our construction, TMA-NM (Tamper-evident Memory Authority, Non-Malleable), instantiates non-malleable information-flow control (IFC) for LLM-agent memory. A cross-defense, cross-attack, and cross-model benchmark over eight frontier models shows that existing defenses fail exactly where the theory predicts (up to 68% laundering attack-success), while TMA-NM reaches 0% attack success on both direct and laundering attacks across all models and channels, at full legitimate utility. We release the benchmark, harness, and machine-checked TLA+ models to support reproducibility.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indirect Prompt Injection Defense | Unified Benchmark pooled over 8 models | Direct ASR0.00e+0 | 5 | |
| Consequential-Action Attack Success Rate | Pooled Cross-Model Evaluation Suite static split | ASR (%)0.00e+0 | 5 | |
| Consequential-Action Attack Success Rate | Pooled Cross-Model Evaluation Suite (adaptive split) | Attack Success Rate (ASR)0.00e+0 | 5 | |
| Consequential-Action Attack Success Rate | Pooled Cross-Model Evaluation Suite whitebox | ASR0.00e+0 | 5 | |
| Consequential-Action Attack Success Rate | Pooled Cross-Model Evaluation Suite (all split) | Attack Success Rate (ASR)0.00e+0 | 5 | |
| Memory-poisoning defense | Trojan Hippo reproduced (pooled over eight models) | Consequential ASR0.00e+0 | 4 | |
| Memory-poisoning defense | All four pooled over eight models aggregate | Consequential ASR (%)0.00e+0 | 4 | |
| Memory-poisoning defense | MemMorph pooled over eight models reproduced | Consequential ASR0.00e+0 | 4 | |
| Memory-poisoning defense | MemoryGraft reproduced (pooled over eight models) | Consequential ASR0.00e+0 | 4 | |
| Memory-poisoning defense | Conv. Trojan reproduced (pooled over eight models) | Consequential ASR0.00e+0 | 4 |