# Enhancing Security in LLM Applications: A Performance Evaluation of Early Detection Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.19109 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.19109/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security.
- Builds on 13 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM safety and security / [Prompt injection and agent security](https://mlsanity.com/safety/prompt-injection-and-agent-security/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02483/) (2023)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09527/) (2022)
- [Baseline Defenses for Adversarial Attacks Against Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00614/) (2023)
- [NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Rails](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10501/) (2023)
- [Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12815/) (2023)
- [PLeak: Prompt Leaking Attacks against Large Language Model Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.06823/) (2024)
- [Adaptive Attacks Break Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.00061/) (2025)
- [Jatmo: Prompt Injection Defense by Task-Specific Finetuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.17673/) (2023)
- [Effective Prompt Extraction from Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.06865/) (2023)
- [From Prompt Injections to SQL Injection Attacks: How Protected is Your LLM-Integrated Web Application?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01990/) (2023)
- [Raccoon: Prompt Extraction Benchmark of LLM-Integrated Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06737/) (2024)
- [Why Are My Prompts Leaked? Unraveling Prompt Extraction Threats in Customized Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.02416/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [A Framework for Rapidly Developing and Deploying Protection Against Large Language Model Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.20639/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Prompt injection threatens novel applications that emerge from adapting LLMs for various user tasks. The newly developed LLM-based software applications become more ubiquitous and diverse. However, the threat of prompt injection attacks undermines the security of these systems as the mitigation and defenses against them, proposed so far, are insufficient. We investigated the capabilities of early prompt injection detection systems, focusing specifically on the detection performance of techniques implemented in various open-source solutions. These solutions are supposed to detect certain types of prompt injection attacks, including the prompt leak. In prompt leakage attacks, an attacker maliciously manipulates the LLM into outputting its system instructions, violating the system's confidentiality. Our study presents analyzes of distinct prompt leakage detection techniques, and a comparative analysis of several detection solutions, which implement those techniques. We identify the strengths and weaknesses of these techniques and elaborate on their optimal configuration and usage in high-stake deployments. In one of the first studies on existing prompt leak detection solutions, we compared the performances of LLM Guard, Vigil, and Rebuff. We concluded that the implementations of canary word checks in Vigil and Rebuff were not effective at detecting prompt leak attacks, and we proposed improvements for them. We also found an evasion weakness in Rebuff's secondary model-based technique and proposed a mitigation. Then, the result of the comparison of LLM Guard, Vigil, and Rebuff at their peak performance revealed that Vigil is optimal for cases when minimal false positive rate is required, and Rebuff is the most optimal for average needs.