LLM Safeguard is a Double-Edged Sword: Exploiting False Positives for Denial-of-Service Attacks
On the map: LLM safety and security → Jailbreaking
Abstract (arXiv)
Safety is a paramount concern for large language models (LLMs) in open deployment, motivating the development of safeguard methods that enforce ethical and responsible use through safety alignment or guardrail mechanisms. Jailbreak attacks that exploit the false negatives of safeguard methods have emerged as a prominent research focus in the field of LLM security. However, we found that the malicious attackers could also exploit false positives of safeguards, i.e., fooling the safeguard model to block safe content mistakenly, leading to a denial-of-service (DoS) affecting LLM users. To bridge the knowledge gap of this overlooked threat, we explore multiple attack methods that include inserting a short adversarial prompt into user prompt templates and corrupting the LLM on the server by poisoned fine-tuning. In both ways, the attack triggers safeguard rejections of user requests from the client. Our evaluation demonstrates the severity of this threat across multiple scenarios. For instance, in the scenario of white-box adversarial prompt injection, the attacker can use our optimization process to automatically generate seemingly safe adversarial prompts, approximately only 30 characters long, that universally block over 97% of user requests on Llama Guard 3. These findings reveal a new dimension in LLM safeguard evaluation -- adversarial robustness to false positives.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Jailbreaking, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 27 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Oct 2024.
Builds on
27 of 36 references.
Closest ancestors · 7
Same direction, newest first
- 2024Don't Listen To Me: Understanding and Exploring Jailbreak Prompts of Large Language Models26 Mar
- 2024RigorLLM: Resilient Guardrails for Large Language Models against Undesired Content19 Mar
- 2024Defending Large Language Models against Jailbreak Attacks via Semantic Smoothing25 Feb
- 2023Token-Level Adversarial Prompt Detection Based on Perplexity Measures and Contextual Information20 Nov
- 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queries12 Oct
- 2023SmoothLLM: Defending Large Language Models Against Jailbreaking Attacks5 Oct
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models27 Jul
Other references · 20
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,588
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
- 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,207
- 2023AGIEval: A Human-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Modelscited by 716
- 2023Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructionscited by 387
- 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 365
8 more
- 2023Multi-Agent Collaboration: Harnessing the Power of Intelligent LLM Agentscited by 333
- 2023Poisoning Web-Scale Training Datasets is Practicalcited by 290
- 2020AutoPrompt: Eliciting Knowledge from Language Models with Automatically Generated Promptscited by 249
- 2023Red-Teaming Large Language Models using Chain of Utterances for Safety-Alignmentcited by 223
- 2023MART: Improving LLM Safety with Multi-round Automatic Red-Teamingcited by 163
- 2024Attacks, Defenses and Evaluations for LLM Conversation Safety: A Surveycited by 130
- 2024Breaking Agents: Compromising Autonomous LLM Agents Through Malfunction Amplificationcited by 81
- 2024A New Era in LLM Security: Exploring Security Concerns in Real-World LLM-based Systemscited by 77
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 4.
6 papers.
- 2025ThinkGuard: Deliberative Slow Thinking Leads to Cautious Guardrailscited by 31
- 2025A Survey of Attacks on Large Language Modelscited by 15
- 2026BenchOverflow: Measuring Overflow in Large Language Models via Plain-Text Promptscited by 3
- 2026Adversarial Prompts for Acceptance Collapse in Speculative Decodingcited by 1
- 2026The Boy Who Cried Wolf: Adversarial Misclassification of Safe Inputs as Unsafe in Multimodal Guardrailscited by 0
- 2026ENDOPROMPT: Victim-Side Pseudo-References for Utility Degradationcited by 0
- 2026ENDOPROMPT: Victim-Side Pseudo-References for Utility Degradation24 Sep 2026
- 2026The Boy Who Cried Wolf: Adversarial Misclassification of Safe Inputs as Unsafe in Multimodal Guardrails2 Aug 2026
- 2026Adversarial Prompts for Acceptance Collapse in Speculative Decoding23 Jul 2026
- 2026BenchOverflow: Measuring Overflow in Large Language Models via Plain-Text Prompts13 Jan 2026
- 2025A Survey of Attacks on Large Language Models18 May 2025
- 2025ThinkGuard: Deliberative Slow Thinking Leads to Cautious Guardrails19 Feb 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Paper Summary Attack: Jailbreaking LLMs through LLM Safety Papers
- 2025Jailbreaking Attacks vs. Content Safety Filters: How Far Are We in the LLM Safety Arms Race?
- 2025Breaking to Build: A Threat Model of Prompt-Based Attacks for Securing LLMs
- 2023Certifying LLM Safety against Adversarial Prompting
- 2024A Comprehensive Study of Jailbreak Attack versus Defense for Large Language Models
- 2026Analysis of LLMs Against Prompt Injection and Jailbreak Attacks
- 2025PandaGuard: Systematic Evaluation of LLM Safety against Jailbreaking Attacks
- 2025Scalable Defense against In-the-wild Jailbreaking Attacks with Safety Context Retrieval