Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Threat Modelling and Risk Analysis for Large Language Model (LLM)-Powered Applications

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 2406.11007 v1 pith:ZX2Q2D4X submitted 2024-06-16 cs.CR cs.SE

Threat Modelling and Risk Analysis for Large Language Model (LLM)-Powered Applications

classification cs.CR cs.SE
keywords threatapplicationsinjectionlanguagemodelriskanalysisattacks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized various applications by providing advanced natural language processing capabilities. However, this innovation introduces new cybersecurity challenges. This paper explores the threat modeling and risk analysis specifically tailored for LLM-powered applications. Focusing on potential attacks like data poisoning, prompt injection, SQL injection, jailbreaking, and compositional injection, we assess their impact on security and propose mitigation strategies. We introduce a framework combining STRIDE and DREAD methodologies for proactive threat identification and risk assessment. Furthermore, we examine the feasibility of an end-to-end threat model through a case study of a custom-built LLM-powered application. This model follows Shostack's Four Question Framework, adjusted for the unique threats LLMs present. Our goal is to propose measures that enhance the security of these powerful AI tools, thwarting attacks, and ensuring the reliability and integrity of LLM-integrated systems.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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.