PRSA: Prompt Stealing Attacks against Real-World Prompt Services
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recently, large language models (LLMs) have garnered widespread attention for their exceptional capabilities. Prompts are central to the functionality and performance of LLMs, making them highly valuable assets. The increasing reliance on high-quality prompts has driven significant growth in prompt services. However, this growth also expands the potential for prompt leakage, increasing the risk that attackers could replicate original functionalities, create competing products, and severely infringe on developers' intellectual property. Despite these risks, prompt leakage in real-world prompt services remains underexplored. In this paper, we present PRSA, a practical attack framework designed for prompt stealing. PRSA infers the detailed intent of prompts through very limited input-output analysis and can successfully generate stolen prompts that replicate the original functionality. Extensive evaluations demonstrate PRSA's effectiveness across two main types of real-world prompt services. Specifically, compared to previous works, it improves the attack success rate from 17.8% to 46.1% in prompt marketplaces and from 39% to 52% in LLM application stores, respectively. Notably, in the attack on "Math", one of the most popular educational applications in OpenAI's GPT Store with over 1 million conversations, PRSA uncovered a hidden Easter egg that had not been revealed previously. Besides, our analysis reveals that higher mutual information between a prompt and its output correlates with an increased risk of leakage. This insight guides the design and evaluation of two potential defenses against the security threats posed by PRSA. We have reported these findings to the prompt service vendors, including PromptBase and OpenAI, and actively collaborate with them to implement defensive measures.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Feb 2024.
Builds on
22 of 52 references.
References · 22
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,323
- 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,674
- 2016Matching Networks for One Shot Learningcited by 2,246
- 2023Large Language Models as Optimizerscited by 830
- 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 760
- 2023Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam Searchcited by 628
- 2024A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applicationscited by 428
- 2023The Reversal Curse: LLMs trained on "A is B" fail to learn "B is A"cited by 399
- 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 372
- 2023Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defensescited by 328
- 2023Challenges and Applications of Large Language Modelscited by 251
10 more
- 2023Effective Prompt Extraction from Language Modelscited by 83
- 2023InstructZero: Efficient Instruction Optimization for Black-Box Large Language Modelscited by 68
- 2019One-Shot Object Detection with Co-Attention and Co-Excitationcited by 67
- 2023Language Model Inversioncited by 66
- 2023The language of prompting: What linguistic properties make a prompt successful?cited by 43
- 2024Prompt Stealing Attacks Against Large Language Modelscited by 39
- 2019An Introductory Guide to Fano's Inequality with Applications in Statistical Estimationcited by 30
- 2023PromptCARE: Prompt Copyright Protection by Watermark Injection and Verificationcited by 30
- 2021Automatically detecting data drift in machine learning classifierscited by 15
- 2022FastKASSIM: A Fast Tree Kernel-Based Syntactic Similarity Metriccited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 7.
9 papers.
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey in LLM(-Agent) Full Stack Safety: Data, Training and Deploymentcited by 110
- 2024Navigating the Risks: A Survey of Security, Privacy, and Ethics Threats in LLM-Based Agentscited by 63
- 2026On Protecting Agentic Systems' Intellectual Property via Watermarkingcited by 7
- 2026IntraGuard: Committee-Side Defenses Against Review Outsourcing to Commercial Chatbotscited by 2
- 2026Fingerprinting Inference Systems of Large Language Modelscited by 1
- 2026PragLocker: Protecting Agent Intellectual Property in Untrusted Deployments via Non-Portable Promptscited by 0
- 2026Daydreaming: Stealing Hidden Agent Skills through Black-Box Task Interactioncited by 0
- 2026AgentLeak: Cloning Stronger LLM Agent Capabilities onto Weaker Agents Beyond Skill Stealingcited by 0
- 2026SparLeak: Privacy Leakage from Sparse Attention in LLM Inference on Shared GPUscited by 0
- 2026SparLeak: Privacy Leakage from Sparse Attention in LLM Inference on Shared GPUs30 Sep 2026
- 2026AgentLeak: Cloning Stronger LLM Agent Capabilities onto Weaker Agents Beyond Skill Stealing7 Sep 2026
- 2026Daydreaming: Stealing Hidden Agent Skills through Black-Box Task Interaction27 Aug 2026
- 2026Fingerprinting Inference Systems of Large Language Models28 May 2026
- 2026PragLocker: Protecting Agent Intellectual Property in Untrusted Deployments via Non-Portable Prompts7 May 2026
- 2026IntraGuard: Committee-Side Defenses Against Review Outsourcing to Commercial Chatbots6 May 2026
- 2026On Protecting Agentic Systems' Intellectual Property via Watermarking9 Feb 2026
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey in LLM(-Agent) Full Stack Safety: Data, Training and Deployment22 Apr 2025
- 2024Navigating the Risks: A Survey of Security, Privacy, and Ethics Threats in LLM-Based Agents14 Nov 2024