A New Era in LLM Security: Exploring Security Concerns in Real-World LLM-based Systems
Open accessAbstract
Large Language Model (LLM) systems are inherently compositional, with individual LLM serving as the core foundation with additional layers of objects such as plugins, sandbox, and so on. Along with the great potential, there are also increasing concerns over the security of such probabilistic intelligent systems. However, existing studies on LLM security often focus on individual LLM, but without examining the ecosystem through the lens of LLM systems with other objects (e.g., Frontend, Webtool, Sandbox, and so on). In this paper, we systematically analyze the security of LLM systems, instead of focusing on the individual LLMs. To do so, we build on top of the information flow and formulate the security of LLM systems as constraints on the alignment of the information flow within LLM and between LLM and other objects. Based on this construction and the unique probabilistic nature of LLM, the attack surface of the LLM system can be decomposed into three key components: (1) multi-layer security analysis, (2) analysis of the existence of constraints, and (3) analysis of the robustness of these constraints. To ground this new attack surface, we propose a multi-layer and multi-step approach and apply it to the state-of-art LLM system, OpenAI GPT4. Our investigation exposes several security issues, not just within the LLM model itself but also in its integration with other components. We found that although the OpenAI GPT4 has designed numerous safety constraints to improve its safety features, these safety constraints are still vulnerable to attackers. To further demonstrate the real-world threats of our discovered vulnerabilities, we construct an end-to-end attack where an adversary can illicitly acquire the user's chat history, all without the need to manipulate the user's input or gain direct access to OpenAI GPT4. Our demo is in the link: https://fzwark.github.io/LLM-System-Attack-Demo/
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?
Static LLM-only systems still don't suffice in realistic defensive environments.
“but static LLM-only systems still don't suffice in realistic defensive environments [3].”
From The Evolution of Agentic AI in Cybersecurity: From Single LLM Reasoners to Multi-Agent Systems and Autonomous Pipelines (2026) · cites this paper as [3]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 23
- Authors
- Wu, F., Zhang, N., Jha, S., McDaniel, P., & Xiao, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2402.18649
- OpenAlex
- W4401066072
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 13 · 2024: 10
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- IMDEA Networks Institute Digital Repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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 › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
- Keywords
- large language model security, information flow, attack surface, safety constraints, GPT-4, probabilistic systems
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