←back to thread

645 points helloplanets | 1 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 #
chasd00 ◴[] No.45008268[source]
Can’t the connections and APIs that an LLM are given to answer queries be authenticated/authorized by the user entering the query? Then the LLM can’t do anything the asking user can’t do at least. Unless you have launch the icbm permissions yourself there’s no way to get the LLM to actually launch the icbm.
replies(2): >>45010841 #>>45021967 #
1. thebytefairy ◴[] No.45021967[source]
I think it depends what kind of system and attack we're talking about. For corporate environments this approach absolutely makes sense. But say in a user's personal pc where the LLM can act as them, they have permission to do many things they shouldn't - send passwords to attackers, send money to attackers, rm -rf etc