AI Security

Principles Underlying Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models

A comprehensive analysis of core architectural vulnerabilities and attack vectors that make LLMs susceptible to prompt injection attacks.
Dr. Gareth Roberts
Dec 11, 2024•11 min read
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Principles Underlying Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models

Core Architectural Vulnerabilities

Input Processing and Context Management

#### Instruction-Data AmbiguityLLMs process all inputs through the same mechanisms, with **no inherent distinction between system instructions and user inputs**. This fundamental architectural choice means that user inputs can be crafted to be interpreted as system instructions. Use delimiters and tags to clearly demarcate what elements of your prompt are instructions, inputs, outputs, etc.#### Contextual ContinuityLLMs maintain context across interactions, allowing attackers to **build up malicious patterns gradually**. This contextual memory, essential for coherent conversations, becomes a vulnerability when exploited over multiple exchanges. Check logs regularly for conversations where most of the context window is being consumed by a conversation.#### State Management ChallengesUnlike traditional applications with clear state boundaries, LLMs maintain **fluid contexts that can be manipulated** across multiple interactions. The lack of strict state isolation creates opportunities for context manipulation.

System Integration Vulnerabilities

#### Multi-modal ProcessingSystems handling multiple input types (text, images, audio and video) often **lack coordinated security checks** across these different modes of input, creating many exploitable gaps. Be wary of users that request responses in Morse code, upload photos of objects that look like text, etc.#### API Integration WeaknessesWhen LLMs interface with external systems, **security assumptions often break down at the integration points**. This is particularly problematic when prompt injection can lead to unauthorized API calls.#### Input/Output SanitisationTraditional input sanitisation methods prove **insufficient for LLMs**, as malicious content can be encoded in semantically valid ways that bypass standard filters. It's easy to filter input before and after the LLM but do not get a false sense of confidence from this, bad content can be written in very creative ways!

Model Behavior Exploitation

Training and Learning Dynamics

#### Training Data InfluenceModels can be manipulated through inputs that **closely resemble their training data**, creating a tension between model performance and security. LLMs can leak (partially or fully) their training data, when prompted with the same or very similar input as to their training data.#### Adaptive Learning VulnerabilitiesSystems designed to learn from interactions can be **gradually influenced by carefully crafted inputs** that shift the model's behavior patterns. In-context learning via instruction is very powerful.#### Response Pattern ExploitationThe statistical nature of LLM responses can be exploited by inputs designed to **trigger specific patterns of behavior**. Knowing which words are likely to come next in the sequence allows for sophisticated attacks.

Pattern Recognition and Processing

#### Pattern Matching LimitationsThe gap between pattern recognition and true understanding creates opportunities for attacks that **exploit the model's statistical biases**. Don't be fooled by LLMs - there is no understanding. Malicious actors know this and utilise this vulnerability extensively.#### Recency BiasModels often give **more weight to recent inputs**, allowing attackers to manipulate responses through carefully sequenced prompts. This is also why it's a good reason to repeat important information near the end of your prompts.#### Cultural and Linguistic PatternsTraining data biases create **exploitable patterns**, particularly in handling edge cases or culturally specific content. Any under-represented cultural or linguistic phenomena can be used to bias a LLM to produce offensive content. Attacks can start small and be somewhat humorous and mild, and then rapidly escalate.

System Trust and Authentication

Authentication and Privilege Management

#### Command Verification GapsLLMs struggle to **authenticate the legitimacy of commands** embedded within natural language inputs. To address this, be sure to always implement role-based access controls, mandatory user signups, and place strong restrictions on guest users (time outs, clearing of message context, limited number of messages, etc).#### Trust AssumptionsLLMs often operate under the **assumption of benign input**, lacking robust mechanisms to verify user intentions. I mean no one really wants to chat with a paranoid chatbot! Just like the naive patsy or tourist walking around unaware of their surroundings, users are interacting with a LLM that is generally unsuspecting of bad intentions. After all, they've had extensive training on following instructions and demonstrating corrigibility.#### Security Layer IntegrationTraditional security measures often **fail to account for the unique ways** LLMs process and interpret information.

Error Handling and System Response

#### Error ManagementInsufficient error handling can **reveal system states and create exploitable conditions** through carefully crafted inputs. Be sure to handle errors gracefully! When things go south, give the model an out that preserves its operational status as much as possible.#### Self-Monitoring LimitationsRelying on the model itself for security checking creates **circular trust relationships** that can be exploited. Recursive statements "confuse" LLMs. Examine logs for prompts with slow inference speed and high entropy.

Advanced Attack Vectors

Temporal and Sequential Exploitation

#### Time-Based VulnerabilitiesThe continuous nature of LLM interactions creates opportunities for attacks that **exploit timing and sequence**. LLMs have no inherent timing protocols; whether the user responds in 10 milliseconds or 100 seconds does not influence the LLM output in anyway. Use supporting frameworks and logging to analyse user's behaviour, especially when there are timing outliers (responding faster than a human can read the output, constant revision of a prompt, etc.)#### Multi-Step AttacksIndividual benign interactions can be **chained together to create sophisticated attack patterns**. Individual prompts that can seem innocent and benign can become dangerous in the right combination.

Model Understanding and Intent

#### Intent InterpretationThe gap between human intent and model interpretation creates vulnerabilities, particularly as **the complexity of the instructions increases**. It is for this reason I like to use LLM routing mechanisms where a large LLM (GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, etc) serves to decompose the prompt and route sub-queries to foundation models fine-tuned to perform specific tasks.#### Template DependenciesSystems relying heavily on predefined response patterns can be **manipulated through inputs that trigger unintended combinations**. Parameter sweeps and varied attacks can reveal the pattern a LLM is expecting to occur. Add in randomness via function calls. Add in deterministic sequences that aren't even sent to a LLM. The user doesn't need to know how all the magic tricks are done.#### Semantic Processing LimitationsThe fundamental constraints in LLMs' understanding capabilities create **exploitable gaps between surface-level pattern matching and true comprehension**. Think about the "how many r's in strawberry" quirk. Why do LLMs get caught on this, and why does their behaviour change compared to "how many r in strawberry?". There are millions of these cases present in LLMs and hackers (ethical or not) are finding and exploiting them everyday.

Practical Implications

Organisations deploying LLMs must develop **comprehensive security strategies** that address these core vulnerabilities. This requires a deep understanding of how their models process inputs, maintain context, and interface with other systems. Security measures must evolve beyond traditional input/output sanitisation to account for the unique ways LLMs can be manipulated through seemingly valid inputs.

Key Recommendations

1. **Implement Multi-Layered Defense** - Use external validation systems - Employ role-based access controls - Monitor conversation patterns and timing2. **Design with Vulnerability Awareness** - Understand instruction-data ambiguity - Plan for contextual manipulation - Account for multi-modal attack vectors3. **Continuous Monitoring and Analysis** - Regular log analysis for suspicious patterns - Anomaly detection for timing and behavior - Pattern recognition for multi-step attacks4. **Error Handling and Recovery** - Graceful error management - Clear fallback procedures - Avoid circular trust relationships5. **Security Through Architecture** - Use LLM routing mechanisms - Implement randomness and unpredictability - Separate concerns between different model types

Conclusion

Prompt injection vulnerabilities represent a fundamental challenge in LLM security that cannot be solved through traditional security measures alone. The architectural nature of these vulnerabilities requires a comprehensive understanding of how LLMs process information and maintain context.As the field continues to evolve, security practitioners must stay informed about emerging attack vectors while implementing robust defensive strategies that account for the unique characteristics of language model architectures.The key to effective LLM security lies not in trying to make the models "unhackable," but in building systems that can detect, contain, and recover from security incidents when they occur.---**Author's Note**: The principles described in this post are to inform both system design and operational security measures around safe LLM usage. Being aware of LLMs' vulnerabilities is critical in protecting them from misuse.
TAGGED WITH
AI Security
Prompt Injection
LLM Vulnerabilities
Enjoyed this article?Share it with your network

Related Articles

Understanding LLM Vulnerabilities Through Experimental Psychology Insights

Understanding LLM Vulnerabilities Through Experimental Psychology Insights

Discover how experimental psychology unveils the vulnerabilities of large language models and enhances their security by addressing cognitive biases and manipulation risks.
Nov 30, 20249 min read
LLM Vulnerabilities
AI Security
Red-Teaming Large Language Models: A Critical Analysis of Security Testing Methods

Red-Teaming Large Language Models: A Critical Analysis of Security Testing Methods

How traditional security testing fails in the face of LLM vulnerabilities and what we need to do about it.
Jan 15, 202510 min read
AI Security
Explore More Articles →

Discussion

3 comments

Join the Discussion

Comments are moderated and will appear after review. Please keep discussions respectful and on-topic.
Dr. Sarah Chen2 days ago
Fascinating analysis of constitutional AI! The point about cultural bias in constitution design is particularly insightful. Have you considered how federated constitutional systems might address some of these challenges?
Like
Alex Morgan1 day ago
Great question! I think federated systems could help, but we'd still need mechanisms to resolve conflicts between different constitutional frameworks.
Dr. Michael Thompson3 days ago
The section on real-world testing is crucial. We've seen too many AI safety measures that work in labs but fail in production. More empirical validation is definitely needed.
Like
Elena Rodriguez4 days ago
This reminds me of the challenges we face in international law - trying to create universal principles while respecting cultural diversity. The parallels are striking.
Like

Want to dive deeper?

Connect with me on LinkedIn or Twitter for more insights on AI safety and research.
LinkedIn
Twitter
Back to all articles
© 2026 /gareth/ All rights reserved
Dr. Gareth Roberts - AI Safety Researcher & Cognitive Neuroscientist