Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Preventing Jailbreak Prompts as Malicious Tools for Cybercriminals: A Cyber Defense Perspective

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues jailbreak prompts are best countered as cyber intrusions by a layered stack of prompt filtering, self-critique, session tracking, and logging.

desk verdict A competent survey of jailbreak attacks and defenses whose central 'prevention' claim is unsupported by any evaluation; worth peer review only if the authors soften the claim and add a validation plan. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16642 v1 pith:PD4PSBAD submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CR cs.CL

Jean Marie Tshimula , Xavier Ndona , D'Jeff K. Nkashama , Pierre-Martin Tardif , Froduald Kabanza , Marc Frappier , Shengrui Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.CL
keywords jailbreakpromptslargelanguagemodelscyberdefensepromptinjectionindepthLLMsafetyadversarialmachinelearningmulti-turnattacks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that jailbreak prompts should be treated as a distinct cyber threat rather than a model-safety nuisance, and that a multi-layered defense stack can keep cybercriminals from turning large language models into tools for harmful output. The proposed stack spans prompt-level filtering (keyword checks, embedding-based intent analysis, attention monitoring), model-level self-critique and ensemble evaluation, adaptive learning and unlearning, session-based tracking of multi-turn conversations, and logging for audit and pattern detection. Six case studies apply the stack to high-stakes scenarios: bioweapon instructions, nuclear-material queries, bomb-making recipes, financial fraud automation, public-health misinformation, and lottery-system hacking. The paper's support is illustrative rather than experimental; its case is that existing defenses can be composed into a defense-in-depth posture, not that a particular deployment has been measured to work.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-layered defense stack, structured as defense-in-depth. At the prompt layer it uses keyword and phrase filters, Prompt-G (an embedding-based real-time prompt-safety check), and attention-weight monitoring motivated by AttnGCG (an attack that manipulates transformer attention weights). At the model layer it uses self-critique, ensemble evaluations, adversarial training, and unlearning of harmful knowledge via Eraser. At the interaction layer it uses session-based tracking and sequential-prompt analysis to catch multi-turn context-building, plus logging and pattern recognition for real-time anomaly detection and audit. The machinery carries the argument by pairing each attack type with a corresponding defensive layer; the six case studies are the demonstration of this pairing.

What would settle it

Run a controlled benchmark with state-of-the-art jailbreak prompts (single-turn, multi-turn, obfuscated, and token-level) against an LLM with the full layered defense enabled, and compare the attack success rate to the same LLM without the layers; if the success rate does not drop materially, the central claim that the stack prevents criminal misuse is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper asserts that jailbreak attacks on LLMs are analogous to targeted intrusions like advanced persistent threats and can be countered by defense-in-depth across the whole prompt-to-response workflow. On the paper's own terms, combining prompt-level detection (including Prompt-G's embedding checks and attention-weight monitoring), model-level self-critique with ensemble evaluations, adversarial training, unlearning of harmful knowledge via Eraser, sequential prompt and session tracking, and real-time logging should prevent cybercriminals from obtaining dangerous outputs. The case studies are the evidence offered: each maps a specific jailbreak technique to the layer that blocks it, from keyword flags and context-aware filters for explicit hazardous queries to session-based analysis for multi-turn context-building attacks.

Load-bearing premise

The whole framework rests on the assumption that the cited defensive pieces, like embedding checks, self-critique, unlearning, and session tracking, still work when combined into one stack and that the combination actually reduces attack success across all six scenarios; the paper provides no experiment or attack-success-rate measurement to verify this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LLM operators can harden a system by layering defenses rather than relying on a single filter; if one layer is bypassed, the others remain.
  • Session-based tracking would catch incremental multi-turn jailbreaks that single-turn filters miss, such as gradually steering a chat toward bomb-making or fraud instructions.
  • Embedding-based checks like Prompt-G plus self-critique would block both explicit and obfuscated hazardous prompts before harmful output reaches the user.
  • Logging and pattern recognition turn attempted jailbreaks into data for adaptive retraining and for legal or regulatory audit.
  • Adversarial training and unlearning via Eraser would reduce the pool of harmful knowledge the model can draw on, making successful jailbreaks less informative.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct next step the paper leaves open is measuring attack success rates before and after enabling the full stack; because the case studies are illustrative, the composition effect is untested.
  • The layered picture implies an ordering assumption: prompt-level filters must be cheap enough to run on every input while model-level self-critique runs only on flagged or high-stakes outputs; the paper does not address that engineering trade-off.
  • If the framework is correct, the same six defense layers could generalize to multimodal LLMs and to AI agents that act on tool calls, not just text responses, since the attack surface is parallel.
  • The defense-in-depth framing also suggests a red-team style evaluation: each layer should be removed one at a time to quantify its marginal contribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that jailbreak prompts are a serious threat to LLMs and should be treated as cyber threats. It surveys known jailbreak techniques and defenses, then proposes a multi-layered defense framework combining prompt-level filtering, model-level self-critique, adaptive learning, session tracking, logging, and ensemble evaluation. The contribution is illustrated through six hypothetical case studies covering bioweapon instructions, nuclear material queries, bomb-making guidance, financial fraud, public-health misinformation, and lottery-system hacking. The abstract and Section 3.1 state that this framework can 'prevent' cybercriminals from obtaining harmful outputs, but the paper provides no experimental validation, no attack-success-rate measurements, and no quantitative comparison with existing defenses.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer LLM operators a concrete, layered defense recipe for a genuinely important class of threats. The topic is timely and the authors correctly identify that jailbreak prompts are an evolving adversarial problem that requires defense-in-depth thinking. However, the paper is primarily a survey-plus-position piece: it assembles existing defensive components (Prompt-G, self-critique, Eraser, AttnGCG defense, session tracking, etc.) into a proposed stack without any new evidence, formal analysis, or implementation. The case studies are narrative illustrations rather than experiments. The paper does not ship code, benchmarks, or parameter-free derivations; its only falsifiable prediction—that the layered stack prevents harmful outputs—is never tested. Thus the significance is currently potential rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §3.1] The central claim that the proposed multi-layered defenses 'prevent' cybercriminals from obtaining harmful outputs such as bioweapon or bomb-making instructions is unsupported by any measurement. The paper reports no attack success rate, no false-positive rate, no baseline comparison, and no robustness evaluation against adaptive attackers. Moreover, the manuscript itself cites results that directly undermine the unqualified 'prevent' language: Li et al. (2024a) report over 70% success for multi-turn human jailbreaks, and Wang et al. (2024) show attention-manipulation attacks (AttnGCG) that bypass existing defenses. Section 4 acknowledges trade-offs but does not quantify them, so the prevention claim in the abstract and Section 5 is neither established nor bounded.
  2. [§3.1, Case Studies 1–6] The six case studies assume the effectiveness of the composed defense stack without testing that composition. For example, Case Study 1 relies on keyword filtering, Prompt-G, attention-weight monitoring, and self-critique, all cited from different papers, but there is no evidence that these components work together or that their combination covers the attack classes described (including the multi-turn and attention-manipulation attacks cited elsewhere in the paper). The manuscript does not specify the interface between layers, the failure model, or the decision rule for escalation, so the framework is not currently falsifiable. To support the stated claim, the authors need at least one experiment on a standard benchmark (e.g., JailTrickBench or EasyJailbreak) comparing the composed stack against individual defenses and against a no-defense baseline.
  3. [§4] The Discussion acknowledges a safety-utility trade-off and computational costs, but these are not quantified or tied to the proposed framework. For instance, the claim that unlearning methods like Eraser 'require careful calibration' is not accompanied by any calibration guidance or evaluation of how the layered stack degrades legitimate model utility. Without measurements of false-positive rates or task-performance loss, the paper cannot support its implicit assertion that the defended system remains practically usable. This is a load-bearing gap because a defense that blocks all prompts is trivially 'safe' but operationally meaningless.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] The reference list contains formatting inconsistencies and duplicate citations: Deng et al. (2023a) appears twice in the same sentence in Section 3.2 (model-level defenses), and Xu et al. (2024c) is listed both as an arXiv preprint and as a Findings of ACL paper with the same title; these should be unified.
  2. [Figure 1] The three example prompts in Figure 1 are not discussed in the body text; the captions are too terse to explain what aspect of each example is being illustrated (e.g., query obfuscation in WordGame). The authors should either refer to the figure explicitly in Section 1 or remove it.
  3. [Throughout] The paper uses 'prevent' in the title, abstract, and Section 3.1, but the Conclusion says 'mitigate' and Section 4 speaks of 'reducing the risk.' This inconsistency should be resolved, preferably by weakening the claims to mitigation unless experimental evidence is added.
  4. [§2] Some statements cite specific numbers without a source: for example, the claim that Prompt-G 'effectively reduces' attack success rates would benefit from reporting the actual reduction from the cited paper, and the claim that 'research has shown' adversarial prompts can coerce LLMs into technical guidance is vague. Adding concrete numbers or naming the specific studies would improve precision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper proposes a qualitative defense framework and does not derive quantitative predictions from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a survey-style proposal: it catalogs jailbreak attacks and defensive techniques from external prior work, then describes a multi-layered defense strategy through six illustrative case studies. No equation, fitted parameter, or quantitative prediction is derived from the paper's own claims; the 'prevention' language in the abstract and conclusion is a proposed design goal, not a measured result. The cited defenses (Prompt-G, Eraser, AttnGCG defenses, adversarial training, self-critique) are external results with their own stated evaluations, and the cited attacks (e.g., MHJ, AttnGCG) are also external. Even though the paper does not experimentally validate the composed stack, that is a lack of empirical support, not circular reasoning: the framework does not define its outputs in terms of its inputs, and no claim reduces to a fit or to an author-authored uniqueness theorem. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a perspective, not a derivation. It relies on external cited works for both the attack techniques and the defensive components, and it adds a normative assumption that combining these components will prevent misuse. No free parameters are fitted because no quantitative model is built, and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Jailbreak prompts can successfully bypass safety filters in real LLMs.
    The paper relies on this to motivate all case studies; it cites prior work (Liu et al., 2023a; Li et al., 2024a) but does not run its own attacks.
  • domain assumption The cited defensive tools (Prompt-G, attention monitoring, self-critique, Eraser, ensemble evaluation) work as described in their source papers.
    The framework assumes these methods provide real protection and that combining them does not break their behavior; no validation is provided in this manuscript.
  • ad hoc to paper A defense-in-depth composition of independent layers yields higher security than single layers in LLM settings.
    The central proposal borrows this principle from network security and applies it to prompts without evidence; no evaluation or model supports the transfer.
  • ad hoc to paper The hypothetical case studies accurately represent how cybercriminals would interact with LLM systems.
    The six scenarios are invented to illustrate the framework, not collected from real incidents or red-team exercises.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Preventing Jailbreak Prompts as Malicious Tools for Cybercriminals: A Cyber Defense Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PD4PSBAD

@misc{pith2026241116642,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Preventing Jailbreak Prompts as Malicious Tools for Cybercriminals: A Cyber Defense Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PD4PSBAD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16642}
}
read the original abstract

Jailbreak prompts pose a significant threat in AI and cybersecurity, as they are crafted to bypass ethical safeguards in large language models, potentially enabling misuse by cybercriminals. This paper analyzes jailbreak prompts from a cyber defense perspective, exploring techniques like prompt injection and context manipulation that allow harmful content generation, content filter evasion, and sensitive information extraction. We assess the impact of successful jailbreaks, from misinformation and automated social engineering to hazardous content creation, including bioweapons and explosives. To address these threats, we propose strategies involving advanced prompt analysis, dynamic safety protocols, and continuous model fine-tuning to strengthen AI resilience. Additionally, we highlight the need for collaboration among AI researchers, cybersecurity experts, and policymakers to set standards for protecting AI systems. Through case studies, we illustrate these cyber defense approaches, promoting responsible AI practices to maintain system integrity and public trust. \textbf{\color{red}Warning: This paper contains content which the reader may find offensive.}

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16642 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of jailbreak attacks the effectiveness of proposed defensive measures. For instance, in Case Study 1 (see §3.1), we examine the risk of LLMs being exploited to gener￾ate instructions for synthesizing bioweapons. This underscores the gravity of adversarial use in high￾stakes contexts, where a combination of keyword detection, context-aware filtering, and attention monitoring are critical to counter such thre… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sara Abdali, Richard Anarfi, CJ Barberan, and Jia He. 2024. Securing large language models: Threats, vulnerabilities and responsible practices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12503

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Maksym Andriushchenko, Francesco Croce, and Nicolas Flammarion. 2024. Jailbreaking leading safety-aligned llms with simple adaptive attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02151

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Federico Bianchi, Mirac Suzgun, Giuseppe Attanasio, Paul R \"o ttger, Dan Jurafsky, Tatsunori Hashimoto, and James Zou. 2023. Safety-tuned llamas: Lessons from improving the safety of large language models that follow instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07875

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Bochuan Cao, Yuanpu Cao, Lu Lin, and Jinghui Chen. 2023. Defending against alignment-breaking attacks via robustly aligned llm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14348

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Kexin Chen, Yi Liu, Dongxia Wang, Jiaying Chen, and Wenhai Wang. 2024. Characterizing and evaluating the reliability of llms against jailbreak attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09326

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Yixin Cheng, Markos Georgopoulos, Volkan Cevher, and Grigorios G Chrysos. 2024. Leveraging the context through multi-round interactions for jailbreaking attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09177

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Boyi Deng, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, Yang Deng, Qifan Wang, and Xiangnan He. 2023 a . Attack prompt generation for red teaming and defending large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12505

    arXiv 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Gelei Deng, Yi Liu, Yuekang Li, Kailong Wang, Ying Zhang, Zefeng Li, Haoyu Wang, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. 2023 b . Jailbreaker: Automated jailbreak across multiple large language model chatbots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08715

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Xingang Guo, Fangxu Yu, Huan Zhang, Lianhui Qin, and Bin Hu. 2024. Cold-attack: Jailbreaking llms with stealthiness and controllability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08679

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Maanak Gupta, CharanKumar Akiri, Kshitiz Aryal, Eli Parker, and Lopamudra Praharaj. 2023. From chatgpt to threatgpt: Impact of generative ai in cybersecurity and privacy. IEEE Access

    2023

  4. [12]

    Yue Huang, Jingyu Tang, Dongping Chen, Bingda Tang, Yao Wan, Lichao Sun, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2024. Obscureprompt: Jailbreaking large language models via obscure input. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13662

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Neel Jain, Avi Schwarzschild, Yuxin Wen, Gowthami Somepalli, John Kirchenbauer, Ping-yeh Chiang, Micah Goldblum, Aniruddha Saha, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. 2023. Baseline defenses for adversarial attacks against aligned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00614

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Heegyu Kim, Sehyun Yuk, and Hyunsouk Cho. 2024. Break the breakout: Reinventing lm defense against jailbreak attacks with self-refinement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15180

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nathalie Maria Kirch, Severin Field, and Stephen Casper. 2024. What features in prompts jailbreak llms? investigating the mechanisms behind attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03343

    2024

  8. [16]

    Nathaniel Li, Ziwen Han, Ian Steneker, Willow Primack, Riley Goodside, Hugh Zhang, Zifan Wang, Cristina Menghini, and Summer Yue. 2024 a . Llm defenses are not robust to multi-turn human jailbreaks yet. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15221

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Xirui Li, Ruochen Wang, Minhao Cheng, Tianyi Zhou, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. 2024 b . Drattack: Prompt decomposition and reconstruction makes powerful llm jailbreakers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16914

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Yuxi Li, Yi Liu, Yuekang Li, Ling Shi, Gelei Deng, Shengquan Chen, and Kailong Wang. 2024 c . Lockpicking llms: A logit-based jailbreak using token-level manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13068

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Xiaogeng Liu, Nan Xu, Muhao Chen, and Chaowei Xiao. 2023 a . Autodan: Generating stealthy jailbreak prompts on aligned large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04451

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Zhengzi Xu, Yuekang Li, Yaowen Zheng, Ying Zhang, Lida Zhao, Tianwei Zhang, and Kailong Wang. 2024. A hitchhiker’s guide to jailbreaking chatgpt via prompt engineering. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Software Engineering and AI for Data...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Zhengzi Xu, Yuekang Li, Yaowen Zheng, Ying Zhang, Lida Zhao, Tianwei Zhang, Kailong Wang, and Yang Liu. 2023 b . Jailbreaking chatgpt via prompt engineering: An empirical study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13860

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lin Lu, Hai Yan, Zenghui Yuan, Jiawen Shi, Wenqi Wei, Pin-Yu Chen, and Pan Zhou. 2024 a . Autojailbreak: Exploring jailbreak attacks and defenses through a dependency lens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03805

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Weikai Lu, Ziqian Zeng, Jianwei Wang, Zhengdong Lu, Zelin Chen, Huiping Zhuang, and Cen Chen. 2024 b . Eraser: Jailbreaking defense in large language models via unlearning harmful knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05880

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Weidi Luo, Siyuan Ma, Xiaogeng Liu, Xiaoyu Guo, and Chaowei Xiao. 2024. Jailbreakv-28k: A benchmark for assessing the robustness of multimodal large language models against jailbreak attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03027

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Anay Mehrotra, Manolis Zampetakis, Paul Kassianik, Blaine Nelson, Hyrum Anderson, Yaron Singer, and Amin Karbasi. 2023. Tree of attacks: Jailbreaking black-box llms automatically. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02119

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Yin Minn Pa Pa, Shunsuke Tanizaki, Tetsui Kou, Michel Van Eeten, Katsunari Yoshioka, and Tsutomu Matsumoto. 2023. An attacker’s dream? exploring the capabilities of chatgpt for developing malware. In Proceedings of the 16th Cyber Security Experimentation and Test Workshop, pag...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Benji Peng, Ziqian Bi, Qian Niu, Ming Liu, Pohsun Feng, Tianyang Wang, Lawrence KQ Yan, Yizhu Wen, Yichao Zhang, and Caitlyn Heqi Yin. 2024. Jailbreaking and mitigation of vulnerabilities in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15236

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bhagyajit Pingua, Deepak Murmu, Meenakshi Kandpal, Jyotirmayee Rautaray, Pranati Mishra, Rabindra Kumar Barik, and Manob Jyoti Saikia. 2024. Mitigating adversarial manipulation in llms: a prompt-based approach to counter jailbreak attacks (prompt-g). PeerJ Computer Science, 10:e2374

    2024

  21. [29]

    Alexander Robey, Eric Wong, Hamed Hassani, and George J Pappas. 2023. Smoothllm: Defending large language models against jailbreaking attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03684

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Reshabh K Sharma, Vinayak Gupta, and Dan Grossman. 2024. Spml: A dsl for defending language models against prompt attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11755

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    do anything now

    Xinyue Shen, Zeyuan Chen, Michael Backes, Yun Shen, and Yang Zhang. 2023. " do anything now": Characterizing and evaluating in-the-wild jailbreak prompts on large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03825

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zijun Wang, Haoqin Tu, Jieru Mei, Bingchen Zhao, Yisen Wang, and Cihang Xie. 2024. Attngcg: Enhancing jailbreaking attacks on llms with attention manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09040

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Alexander Wei, Nika Haghtalab, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2024. Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  26. [34]

    Yueqi Xie, Minghong Fang, Renjie Pi, and Neil Gong. 2024. Gradsafe: Detecting unsafe prompts for llms via safety-critical gradient analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13494

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Yueqi Xie, Jingwei Yi, Jiawei Shao, Justin Curl, Lingjuan Lyu, Qifeng Chen, Xing Xie, and Fangzhao Wu. 2023. Defending chatgpt against jailbreak attack via self-reminders. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(12):1486--1496

    2023

  28. [36]

    Chen Xiong, Xiangyu Qi, Pin-Yu Chen, and Tsung-Yi Ho. 2024. Defensive prompt patch: A robust and interpretable defense of llms against jailbreak attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20099

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Jiacen Xu, Jack W Stokes, Geoff McDonald, Xuesong Bai, David Marshall, Siyue Wang, Adith Swaminathan, and Zhou Li. 2024 a . Autoattacker: A large language model guided system to implement automatic cyber-attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01038

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zhao Xu, Fan Liu, and Hao Liu. 2024 b . Bag of tricks: Benchmarking of jailbreak attacks on llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09324

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Zihao Xu, Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Yuekang Li, and Stjepan Picek. 2024 c . A comprehensive study of jailbreak attack versus defense for large language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024, pages 7432--7449

    2024

  32. [40]

    Zihao Xu, Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Yuekang Li, and Stjepan Picek. 2024 d . Llm jailbreak attack versus defense techniques--a comprehensive study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13457

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Sibo Yi, Yule Liu, Zhen Sun, Tianshuo Cong, Xinlei He, Jiaxing Song, Ke Xu, and Qi Li. 2024. Jailbreak attacks and defenses against large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04295

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Zhiyuan Yu, Xiaogeng Liu, Shunning Liang, Zach Cameron, Chaowei Xiao, and Ning Zhang. 2024. Don't listen to me: Understanding and exploring jailbreak prompts of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17336

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Yifan Zeng, Yiran Wu, Xiao Zhang, Huazheng Wang, and Qingyun Wu. 2024. Autodefense: Multi-agent llm defense against jailbreak attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04783

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Jie Zhang, Haoyu Bu, Hui Wen, Yu Chen, Lun Li, and Hongsong Zhu. 2024 a . When llms meet cybersecurity: A systematic literature review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03644

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Tianrong Zhang, Bochuan Cao, Yuanpu Cao, Lu Lin, Prasenjit Mitra, and Jinghui Chen. 2024 b . Wordgame: Efficient & effective llm jailbreak via simultaneous obfuscation in query and response. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14023

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Weikang Zhou, Xiao Wang, Limao Xiong, Han Xia, Yingshuang Gu, Mingxu Chai, Fukang Zhu, Caishuang Huang, Shihan Dou, Zhiheng Xi, et al. 2024. Easyjailbreak: A unified framework for jailbreaking large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12171

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Xiaotian Zou, Yongkang Chen, and Ke Li. 2024. Is the system message really important to jailbreaks in large language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14857

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  41. [49]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.