Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Convergent Detour Hijacking (CDH), a novel attack that exploits the reliance of LLM agents on third-party skills by manipulating both the selection and instruction phases of task execution. By leveraging a shared semantic cover, CDH effectively misdirects LLMs into unnecessary, resource-intensive detours while still achieving task completion. The results demonstrate that while tasks can be completed correctly, the associated costs in terms of token consumption and execution time can increase significantly, highlighting vulnerabilities in LLM operational integrity.
Task completion in LLMs can be achieved at a staggering 92% increase in execution time due to subtle manipulation of skill selection and instruction processes.
LLM agents increasingly rely on third-party skills, using natural-language descriptions for selection and instruction bodies for planning. This progressive-disclosure design exposes two sequential control points to untrusted publishers: a static skill may steer an otherwise correct task onto an unnecessarily costly trajectory. Prior work studies selection manipulation, malicious skill instructions, and tool-chain resource amplification largely separately, leaving their end-to-end composition unclear. We introduce Convergent Detour Hijacking (CDH), a text-only, runtime-independent attack that couples these stages. Under shared semantic cover, a description establishes relevance during selection, while an aligned body reuses that rationale to fabricate plausible dependencies during planning. CDH attracts an attacker-controlled coordinator alongside legitimate skills, recruits unnecessary benign skills into a bounded detour, and then re-enters the original route to preserve task completion. We evaluate it across multiple LLM backends and 491 held-out tasks under single-task and multi-turn conditions. On DeepSeek-V4-Pro, the matched coordinator is selected in 80.02% of tasks; among coordinator-hit runs that complete tasks, token consumption and end-to-end execution time increase by 66.91% and 92.45%, respectively, while aggregate task completion remains comparable. Thus, correct outcomes do not guarantee trajectory integrity or cost safety.
