Attack MEDIUM relevance

LLM Agents Can Easily Tamper With Their Own Traces

Jeremy Qin David Schmotz Derck Prinzhorn Luca Beurer-Kellner Ameya Prabhu Maksym Andriushchenko
Published
September 24, 2026
Updated
September 24, 2026

Abstract

Asynchronous monitoring, incident investigations, and compliance audits primarily rely on agent traces to reconstruct what happened. These analyses assume that LLM agents cannot tamper with their own execution traces. We show that local LLM agents such as Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity, Open Code and Grok Build fail to enforce this boundary. All tested harnesses, except Muse Code, allowed agents to delete their traces when asked, without triggering monitor guardrails. We also validate that external attackers can exploit this gap to induce trace deletion. Finally, we show that trace tampering behavior emerges naturally in frontier models, when agents try to improve their rewards. We advise practitioners to ensure trace logging happens through an independent interception mechanism outside of the agent's control, preserving trace integrity even in cases of full host compromise. Overall, our findings identify a concrete failure of trace integrity in agent infrastructure which can be used to conceal misaligned behaviors like scheming or sabotage.

Pro Analysis

Full threat analysis, ATLAS technique mapping, compliance impact assessment (ISO 42001, EU AI Act), and actionable recommendations are available with a Pro subscription.

Threat Deep-Dive
ATLAS Mapping
Compliance Reports
Actionable Recommendations
Start 14-Day Free Trial