mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Goal Hijacking Attack on Large Language Models via Pseudo-Conversation Injection

arXiv 2410.23678 ↗First posted 31 Oct 2024cs.CLcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Goal hijacking is a type of adversarial attack on Large Language Models (LLMs) where the objective is to manipulate the model into producing a specific, predetermined output, regardless of the user's original input. In goal hijacking, an attacker typically appends a carefully crafted malicious suffix to the user's prompt, which coerces the model into ignoring the user's original input and generating the target response. In this paper, we introduce a novel goal hijacking attack method called Pseudo-Conversation Injection, which leverages the weaknesses of LLMs in role identification within conversation contexts. Specifically, we construct the suffix by fabricating responses from the LLM to the user's initial prompt, followed by a prompt for a malicious new task. This leads the model to perceive the initial prompt and fabricated response as a completed conversation, thereby executing the new, falsified prompt. Following this approach, we propose three Pseudo-Conversation construction strategies: Targeted Pseudo-Conversation, Universal Pseudo-Conversation, and Robust Pseudo-Conversation. These strategies are designed to achieve effective goal hijacking across various scenarios. Our experiments, conducted on two mainstream LLM platforms including ChatGPT and Qwen, demonstrate that our proposed method significantly outperforms existing approaches in terms of attack effectiveness.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Oct 2024.

Builds on

16 of 28 references.

References · 16

  1. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  2. 2022Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Modelscited by 3,024
  3. 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,234
  4. 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,651
  5. 2021Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalizationcited by 1,470
  6. 2020RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Modelscited by 1,255
  7. 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 832
  8. 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 605
  9. 2023DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Modelscited by 518
  10. 2023Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defensescited by 364
  11. 2022GatorTron: A Large Clinical Language Model to Unlock Patient Information from Unstructured Electronic Health Recordscited by 238
  12. 2024Automatic and Universal Prompt Injection Attacks against Large Language Modelscited by 119
4 more
  1. 2023Jatmo: Prompt Injection Defense by Task-Specific Finetuningcited by 106
  2. 2024InjecGuard: Benchmarking and Mitigating Over-defense in Prompt Injection Guardrail Modelscited by 42
  3. 2024Empirical Analysis of Large Vision-Language Models against Goal Hijacking via Visual Prompt Injectioncited by 17
  4. 2023Towards Safer Generative Language Models: A Survey on Safety Risks, Evaluations, and Improvementscited by 14

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 4.

4 papers.