Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 cited by

An Early Categorization of Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.00898 v1 pith:SGMOKGMS submitted 2024-01-31 cs.CR cs.CLcs.LG

An Early Categorization of Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Models

classification cs.CR cs.CLcs.LG
keywords promptinjectionsmodelslanguagelargeattacksattemptbeen
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Large language models and AI chatbots have been at the forefront of democratizing artificial intelligence. However, the releases of ChatGPT and other similar tools have been followed by growing concerns regarding the difficulty of controlling large language models and their outputs. Currently, we are witnessing a cat-and-mouse game where users attempt to misuse the models with a novel attack called prompt injections. In contrast, the developers attempt to discover the vulnerabilities and block the attacks simultaneously. In this paper, we provide an overview of these emergent threats and present a categorization of prompt injections, which can guide future research on prompt injections and act as a checklist of vulnerabilities in the development of LLM interfaces. Moreover, based on previous literature and our own empirical research, we discuss the implications of prompt injections to LLM end users, developers, and researchers.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Strengthening Polymorphic Prompt Assembling: Dynamic Separator Generation Against Emerging Prompt Injection Attacks

    cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Dynamic separator generation via domain-separated SHA-256 reduces attack success rate from 0.88 to 0.38 and eliminates leakage exposure in evaluations against 16 payloads on Llama and DeepSeek models.

  2. StealthGraph: Exposing Domain-Specific Risks in LLMs through Knowledge-Graph-Guided Harmful Prompt Generation

    cs.CL 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    StealthGraph generates implicit domain-relevant harmful prompts via knowledge-graph guidance and two-strategy obfuscation to enable more realistic red-teaming of LLM safety.

  3. The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    AI safety should be measured by whether deployed systems keep errors visible, contestable, containable, and recoverable across five integrity layers, not only by whether individual model outputs look safe.

  4. DAO-enabled decentralized physical AI: A new paradigm for human-machine collaboration

    cs.MA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    DePAI is a proposed democratic architecture that integrates DAOs, DePIN, and AI to enable human oversight of machine execution in physical-digital systems under transparent on-chain rules.

  5. How Well Do AI Systems Solve AP Physics? A Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models on Algebra-Based Free Response Questions

    physics.ed-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    ChatGPT 4.1 mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude 4.0 Sonnet, and DeepSeek R1 average 82–92% on AP Physics 1/2 free-response questions but systematically fail spatial, visual, and conceptual tasks.

  6. Agentic AI Security: Threats, Defenses, Evaluation, and Open Challenges

    cs.AI 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A survey that taxonomizes threats to agentic AI, reviews benchmarks and evaluation methods, discusses technical and governance defenses, and identifies open challenges.

  7. When Your Reviewer is an LLM: Biases, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Risks in Peer Review

    cs.CY 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0

    GPT-5-mini gives weaker papers systematically higher scores than human reviewers, and hidden field-specific prompts in PDFs can force it to assign perfect scores or suppress weaknesses.