Cited by 59Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSecurity and Verification in ComputingTopic Modeling

PLeak: Prompt Leaking Attacks against Large Language Model Applications

Open access
Hui, Bo, Yuan, Haolin, Gong, Neil, Burlina, Philippe, Cao, Yinzhi·2024·Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) enable a new ecosystem with many downstream applications, called LLM applications, with different natural language processing tasks. The functionality and performance of an LLM application highly depend on its system prompt, which instructs the backend LLM on what task to perform. Therefore, an LLM application developer often keeps a system prompt confidential to protect its intellectual property. As a result, a natural attack, called prompt leaking, is to steal the system prompt from an LLM application, which compromises the developer's intellectual property. Existing prompt leaking attacks primarily rely on manually crafted queries, and thus achieve limited effectiveness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3658644.3670370

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs can be sensitive to irrelevant context, exhibiting context leakage.

    “Prior work has shown that LLMs can be sensitive to irrelevant context, exhibiting context leakage (Mireshghallah et al., 2023; Gupta et al., 2024; Hui et al., 2024), and display sycophantic behavior with responses favoring perceived user preferences rather than objective evidence (Sharma et al., 2023; Perez et al., 2023; Fanous et al., 2025).”

    From PersistBench: When Should Long-Term Memories Be Forgotten by LLMs? (2026) · cites this paper as Hui et al., 2024

  • PersistBench covers a wider and different set of risks (cross-domain leakage and sycophancy) caused by long-term user memories than prior work that targets privacy-centric failures or risks confined to a single short context window.

    “Unlike prior work that primarily targets privacy-centric failures such as PII disclosure and contextual integrity violations (Mireshghallah et al., 2025), or risks confined to a single short context window (Hui et al., 2024), PersistBench covers a wider and different set of risks (cross-domain leakage and sycophancy) caused by long-term user memories.”

    From PersistBench: When Should Long-Term Memories Be Forgotten by LLMs? (2026) · cites this paper as Hui et al., 2024

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hui, B., Yuan, H., Gong, N., Burlina, P., & Cao, Y.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-12-02
Pages
3600-3614
ISSN
1543-7221 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4405181744
Cited by
55
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 1
FWCI
15.88
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • Army Research Office (ARO) (W911NF2110182)
  • National Science Foundation (NSF) (OAC-23-19742, CNS-21-31859, CNS- 21-12562, CNS-19-37786, CNS-21-25977, and CNS-19-37787)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
intellectual property protection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review