REVIEW 2 cited by
LLMs Can Defend Themselves Against Jailbreaking in a Practical Manner: A Vision Paper
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
LLMs Can Defend Themselves Against Jailbreaking in a Practical Manner: A Vision Paper
read the original abstract
Jailbreaking is an emerging adversarial attack that bypasses the safety alignment deployed in off-the-shelf large language models (LLMs). A considerable amount of research exists proposing more effective jailbreak attacks, including the recent Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) attack, jailbreak template-based attacks such as using "Do-Anything-Now" (DAN), and multilingual jailbreak. In contrast, the defensive side has been relatively less explored. This paper proposes a lightweight yet practical defense called SELFDEFEND, which can defend against all existing jailbreak attacks with minimal delay for jailbreak prompts and negligible delay for normal user prompts. Our key insight is that regardless of the kind of jailbreak strategies employed, they eventually need to include a harmful prompt (e.g., "how to make a bomb") in the prompt sent to LLMs, and we found that existing LLMs can effectively recognize such harmful prompts that violate their safety policies. Based on this insight, we design a shadow stack that concurrently checks whether a harmful prompt exists in the user prompt and triggers a checkpoint in the normal stack once a token of "No" or a harmful prompt is output. The latter could also generate an explainable LLM response to adversarial prompts. We demonstrate our idea of SELFDEFEND works in various jailbreak scenarios through manual analysis in GPT-3.5/4. We also list three future directions to further enhance SELFDEFEND.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
When LLM Defenses Backfire: Characterizing Safety, Performance, and Cost Trade-offs
Across 11 defenses, 6 open LLMs, and multiple benchmarks, rule-based defenses best preserve task accuracy, conservative self-reflection drives over-refusal, and multi-round defenses dominate inference cost.
-
ReGA: Model-Based Safeguard for LLMs via Representation-Guided Abstraction
ReGA uses safety-critical representations to guide abstraction in model-based analysis, enabling scalable detection of harmful LLM inputs with reported AUROC of 0.975 at prompt level.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.