Data Security Vulnerabilities

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) agents that allows attackers to manipulate the agent's reasoning process through the insertion of strategically placed adversarial strings. This allows attackers to induce the agent to perform unintended malicious actions or invoke specific malicious tools, even when the initial prompt or instruction is benign. The attack exploits the agent's reliance on chain-of-thought reasoning and dynamically optimizes the adversarial string to maximize the likelihood of the agent incorporating malicious actions into its reasoning path.

A vulnerability exists in large language models (LLMs) where insufficient sanitization of system prompts allows attackers to extract sensitive information embedded within those prompts. Attackers can use an agentic approach, employing multiple interacting LLMs (as demonstrated in the referenced research), to iteratively refine prompts and elicit confidential data from the target LLM's responses. The vulnerability is exacerbated by the LLM's ability to infer context from seemingly innocuous prompts.

FC-Attack leverages automatically generated flowcharts containing step-by-step descriptions derived or rephrased from harmful queries, combined with a benign textual prompt, to jailbreak Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). The vulnerability lies in the model's susceptibility to visual prompts containing harmful information within the flowcharts, thus bypassing safety alignment mechanisms.

CVE-2024-XXXX

Large Language Models (LLMs) used in hate speech detection systems are vulnerable to adversarial attacks and model stealing, resulting in evasion of hate speech detection. Adversarial attacks modify hate speech text to evade detection, while model stealing creates surrogate models that mimic the target system's behavior.

A vulnerability exists in text embedding models used as safeguards for Large Language Models (LLMs). Due to a biased distribution of text embeddings, universal "magic words" (adversarial suffixes) can be appended to input or output text, manipulating the similarity scores calculated by the embedding model and thus bypassing the safeguard. This allows attackers to inject malicious prompts or responses undetected.

Large Language Model (LLM) tool-calling systems are vulnerable to adversarial tool injection attacks. Attackers can inject malicious tools ("Manipulator Tools") into the tool platform, manipulating the LLM's tool selection and execution process. This allows for privacy theft (extracting user queries), denial-of-service (DoS) attacks against legitimate tools, and unscheduled tool-calling (forcing the use of attacker-specified tools regardless of relevance). The attack exploits vulnerabilities in the tool retrieval mechanism and the LLM's decision-making process. Successful attacks require the malicious tool to be (1) retrieved by the system, (2) selected for execution by the LLM, and (3) its output to manipulate subsequent LLM actions.

CVE-2024-XXXX

A poisoning attack against a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system that manipulates the retriever component by injecting a poisoned document into the data used by the embedding model. This poisoned document contains modified and incorrect information. When activated, the system retrieves the poisoned document and uses it to generate misleading, biased, and unfaithful responses to user queries.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to attacks that generate obfuscated activations, bypassing latent-space defenses such as sparse autoencoders, representation probing, and latent out-of-distribution (OOD) detection. Attackers can manipulate model inputs or training data to produce outputs exhibiting malicious behavior while remaining undetected by these defenses. This occurs because the models can represent harmful behavior through diverse activation patterns, allowing attackers to exploit inconspicuous latent states.