Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

LLM Safeguard is a Double-Edged Sword: Exploiting False Positives for Denial-of-Service Attacks

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 2410.02916 v3 pith:2T47MLW5 submitted 2024-10-03 cs.CR cs.AI

classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords safeguardadversarialfalsemethodspositivespromptuserattack
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Safety is a paramount concern for large language models (LLMs) in open deployment, motivating the development of safeguard methods that enforce ethical and responsible use through safety alignment or guardrail mechanisms. Jailbreak attacks that exploit the \emph{false negatives} of safeguard methods have emerged as a prominent research focus in the field of LLM security. However, we found that the malicious attackers could also exploit false positives of safeguards, i.e., fooling the safeguard model to block safe content mistakenly, leading to a denial-of-service (DoS) affecting LLM users. To bridge the knowledge gap of this overlooked threat, we explore multiple attack methods that include inserting a short adversarial prompt into user prompt templates and corrupting the LLM on the server by poisoned fine-tuning. In both ways, the attack triggers safeguard rejections of user requests from the client. Our evaluation demonstrates the severity of this threat across multiple scenarios. For instance, in the scenario of white-box adversarial prompt injection, the attacker can use our optimization process to automatically generate seemingly safe adversarial prompts, approximately only 30 characters long, that universally block over 97% of user requests on Llama Guard 3. These findings reveal a new dimension in LLM safeguard evaluation -- adversarial robustness to false positives.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Adversarial Prompts for Acceptance Collapse in Speculative Decoding

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ADSD shows that a short adversarial suffix appended to a prompt can collapse the token-acceptance rate in speculative decoding, increasing latency by 62.3% on GSM8K while preserving answer accuracy.

  2. VSF-Med:A Vulnerability Scoring Framework for Medical Vision-Language Models

    cs.CV 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    VSF-Med introduces an eight-dimension, judge-scored vulnerability score for medical VLMs and reports that all five tested models are most vulnerable to persistent attack effects, with Llama-3.2 showing the largest drop.

  3. The Boy Who Cried Wolf: Adversarial Misclassification of Safe Inputs as Unsafe in Multimodal Guardrails

    cs.CR 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Adversarial images aligned with the latent distribution of unsafe content can force multimodal guard models to falsely reject safe user requests with up to 84% success.

Pith tools