Aug 2026· Artificial Intelligence and Applications· 0 citations
TL;DR
Compositional Attack Path Scoring (CAPS), a framework engineered to quantify end-to-end multi-hop risks in LLM architectures, establishes a rigorous benchmark for quantitative vulnerability management in complex, agentic LLM environments.
Abstract
Evaluating the security posture of large language model (LLM) deployment stacks is a critical challenge in modern AI security. Traditional vulnerability management frameworks—such as the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) and component-level checklists—assume that software components can be evaluated in isolation. In real-world agentic and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)-based LLM ecosystems, this assumption is systematically violated: attackers exploit complex topologies, chaining seemingly low–risk vulnerabilities (e.g., indirect prompt injection) with downstream tools (e.g., SQL execution) to achieve catastrophic compromises. Applying independent scoring methods to deeply integrated stacks therefore yields inflated risk assessments, misaligned mitigation priorities, and a failure to capture compositional attack paths. We propose Compositional Attack Path Scoring (CAPS), a framework engineered to quantify end-to-end multi-hop risks in LLM architectures. CAPS integrates three capabilities: (i) directed graph topological modeling, which maps the deployment stack from attacker entry points to high-value assets; (ii) dynamic mitigation attenuation, which calculates the “Effective Exploitability” of nodes based on deployed guardrails; and (iii) a compositional path engine that scores risk via an explicit exponential decay factor reflecting the friction of traversing trust boundaries. CAPS also provides an automated return on investment engine to rank mitigations by systemic risk reduction. Empirical evaluation on standardized architectures (RAG Chatbots, Autonomous Coding Agents, and Enterprise Model Routers) shows that CAPS improves risk calibration: against the Autonomous Agent benchmark, it computes a realistic critical path score of 51.3, correcting the naive 85.0 overestimation of component-level CVSS scoring. CAPS establishes a rigorous benchmark for quantitative vulnerability management in complex, agentic LLM environments.
Received: 1 June 2026 | Revised: 15 July 2026 | Accepted: 31 July 2026
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to this work.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the CAPS repository [GitHub] at https://github.com/vinhqdang/CAPS-Compositional-Attack-Path-Scoring-for-LLM-Deployment-Stacks.
Author Contribution Statement
Quang-Vinh Dang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft. Hoang-Viet Vu: Software, Validation, Visualization. Ngoc-Son-An Nguyen: Investigation, Data curation. Minh Ngoc Dinh: Formal analysis, Investigation. Dat Le: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration.
D-RELLM is presented, a defensive reverse-engineering framework for black-box security assessment of deployed LLM applications that treats the deployed application as a socio-technical system whose risk depends on instruction hierarchy, retrieval trust, authorization, tool agency, output handling, monitoring, and operational controls.
Bhavesh B. Prajapati, Bhavya Shah· International journal of com...· 0 citations
Large Language Models (LLMs) are now deployed at an unprecedented scale across many critical sectors, rapidly transitioning from experimental AI tools to embedded components of production software systems. This accelerated adoption, often enabled by low-code integrations, has lowered technical barriers while simultaneously expanding the attack surface of modern applications, particularly when deployments occur without sufficient domain-specific security expertise. In many cases, security maturity has not progressed at the same pace as capability expansion, creating systemic exposure across confidentiality, integrity, and availability dimensions. To provide structured clarity amid this rapid growth, this paper presents a comparative and standards-aligned analysis of LLM security risks and defense mechanisms grounded in the OWASP GenAI Top-10 (2025). We systematically examine each vulnerability class, map representative attack patterns to primary mitigation strategies, evaluate their security property impact, and analyze practical limitations and implementation trade-offs. In addition, we introduce a severity-based assessment to prioritize risks according to operational and systemic impact, offering a quantitative perspective on defensive readiness. Our findings indicate that current mitigation strategies are predominantly reactive, concentrated at inference time, and unevenly distributed across the LLM lifecycle. Controls addressing training pipelines, supplychain dependencies, and autonomous system behaviors remain comparatively less mature and less standardized. By integrating vulnerability classification, defense mapping, severity prioritization, and trade-off analysis within a unified framework, this study provides actionable guidance for strengthening secure, resilient, and standards-driven LLM deployment in high-stakes environments.
Md Abdul Barek, Md Bajlur Rashid, A. K. I. Riad et al.· Annual International Compute...· 0 citations
Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used for code generation, yet their security behavior in realistic development workflows remains underexplored. Existing benchmarks often rely on explicitly specified security requirements, failing to capture real-world scenarios where prompts are frequently ambiguous or incomplete. In this paper, we adopt a developer-centric perspective and identify three representative risk scenarios that commonly lead to security vulnerabilities in LLM-generated code: Ambiguous Requirements, Under-Specified Operational Context, and Security--Functionality Conflict. Based on these scenarios, we construct a large-scale benchmark comprising 2,700 test cases, enabling fine-grained evaluation of LLM security under realistic conditions. Extensive evaluation of eight state-of-the-art LLMs reveals that all models exhibit average vulnerability rates exceeding 56\% across risk scenarios. We further demonstrate that security-aware prompting can substantially mitigate these risks, achieving up to 45\% improvement.
Lixun Ma, Ruolong Ma, Bei Wang et al.· 0 citations
Large language model (LLM) agents integrated with external tools are vulnerable to indirect prompt injections embedded in environmental states. However, existing studies largely rely on manually implemented or reused environments, stochastic LLM-based tool simulation, and predefined injection locations, limiting scalable security research across broader domains. To bridge this gap, we propose **ToolHazard**, a scalable adversarial environment synthesis framework that reduces human engineering and supports expansion with additional seed domains and compute. Through an Environment Simulator, an Attacker Agent, and a User Simulator, ToolHazard synthesizes executable stateful environments, discovers viable injection points and generates environment-specific payloads, and constructs state-grounded long-horizon tasks. Based on ToolHazard, we build **ToolHazard-Bench** for stress-testing agents under complex workflows and diverse environmental attacks. Experiments reveal substantial agent vulnerabilities and show that injection timing and placement affect attack effectiveness. Moreover, ToolHazard-generated alignment data improves security on both ToolHazard-Bench and AgentDojo while preserving benign task utility.
Yutao Mou, Pengfei Yang, Zhenfei Yin et al.· 0 citations
A defense taxonomy spanning three axes, namely prompt-level, inference-time, and training-time interventions, is proposed, within which 30 mitigation mechanisms published from 2024 onwards are systematically analyzed, demonstrating that no single defense mechanism provides comprehensive protection, and that robust deployment mandates layered, complementary strategies.
Berkay Özçam, Mustafa Kara, Muhammet Ali Aydin et al.· Electronics· 0 citations