Exploiting Programmatic Behavior of LLMs: Dual-Use Through Standard Security Attacks
Open accessAbstract
Recent advances in instruction-following large language models (LLMs) have led to dramatic improvements in a range of NLP tasks. Unfortunately, we find that the same improved capabilities amplify the dual-use risks for malicious purposes of these models. Dual-use is difficult to prevent as instruction-following capabilities now enable standard attacks from computer security. The capabilities of these instruction-following LLMs provide strong economic incentives for dual-use by malicious actors. In particular, we show that instruction-following LLMs can produce targeted malicious content, including hate speech and scams, bypassing in-the-wild defenses implemented by LLM API vendors. Our analysis shows that this content can be generated economically and at cost likely lower than with human effort alone. Together, our findings suggest that LLMs will increasingly attract more sophisticated adversaries and attacks, and addressing these attacks may require new approaches to mitigations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 are vulnerable to prompt injection (or jailbreak) attacks, where malicious actors manipulate inputs to trick the model into producing harmful outputs.
“In addition, they are vulnerable to prompt injection (or jailbreak) attacks, where malicious actors manipulate inputs to trick the model into producing harmful outputs (Kang et al., 2023; Wei et al., 2023; Zou et al., 2023).”
From NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Rails (2023) · cites this paper as Kang et al., 2023
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 45 · Cited by 114
- Authors
- Kang, D., Li, X., Stoica, I., Guestrin, C., Zaharia, M., & Hashimoto, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 132-143
- arXiv
- 2302.05733
- OpenAlex
- W4400315206
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 14
- FWCI
- 29.51
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Open Philanthropy Project
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- large language models, dual-use risks, hate speech, scams, instruction following, security attacks
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