←back to thread

645 points helloplanets | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
alexbecker ◴[] No.45005567[source]
I doubt Comet was using any protections beyond some tuned instructions, but one thing I learned at USENIX Security a couple weeks ago is that nobody has any idea how to deal with prompt injection in a multi-turn/agentic setting.
replies(1): >>45005703 #
hoppp ◴[] No.45005703[source]
Maybe treat prompts like it was SQL strings, they need to be sanitized and preferably never exposed to external dynamic user input
replies(7): >>45005949 #>>45006195 #>>45006203 #>>45006809 #>>45007940 #>>45008268 #>>45011823 #
prisenco ◴[] No.45006203[source]
Sanitizing free-form inputs in a natural language is a logistical nightmare, so it's likely there isn't any safe way to do that.
replies(1): >>45006325 #
1. hoppp ◴[] No.45006325[source]
Maybe an LLM should do it.

1st run: check and sanitize

2nd run: give to agent with privileges to do stuff

replies(3): >>45006404 #>>45006812 #>>45008085 #
2. prisenco ◴[] No.45006404[source]
Problems created by using LLMs generally can't be solved using LLMS.

Your best case scenario is reducing risk by some % but you could also make it less reliable or even open up new attack vectors.

Security issues like these need deterministic solutions, and that's exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) with LLMs.

3. gmerc ◴[] No.45006812[source]
Now you have 2 vulnerable LLMs. Congratulations.
4. OtherShrezzing ◴[] No.45008085[source]
What stops someone prompt injecting the first LLM into passing unsanitised data to the second?