mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Paladin: Defending LLM-enabled Phishing Emails with a New Trigger-Tag Paradigm

arXiv 2509.07287 ↗First posted 8 Sep 2025cs.CR cs.AIcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

With the rapid development of large language models, the potential threat of their malicious use, particularly in generating phishing content, is becoming increasingly prevalent. Leveraging the capabilities of LLMs, malicious users can synthesize phishing emails that are free from spelling mistakes and other easily detectable features. Furthermore, such models can generate topic-specific phishing messages, tailoring content to the target domain and increasing the likelihood of success. Detecting such content remains a significant challenge, as LLM-generated phishing emails often lack clear or distinguishable linguistic features. As a result, most existing semantic-level detection approaches struggle to identify them reliably. While certain LLM-based detection methods have shown promise, they suffer from high computational costs and are constrained by the performance of the underlying language model, making them impractical for large-scale deployment. In this work, we aim to address this issue. We propose Paladin, which embeds trigger-tag associations into vanilla LLM using various insertion strategies, creating them into instrumented LLMs. When an instrumented LLM generates content related to phishing, it will automatically include detectable tags, enabling easier identification. Based on the design on implicit and explicit triggers and tags, we consider four distinct scenarios in our work. We evaluate our method from three key perspectives: stealthiness, effectiveness, and robustness, and compare it with existing baseline methods. Experimental results show that our method outperforms the baselines, achieving over 90% detection accuracy across all scenarios.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 103 of its 145 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Sep 2025.

Builds on

103 of 145 references.

References · 103

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  3. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  4. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
  5. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  6. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
  7. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  8. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
  9. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  10. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
  11. 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
  12. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
38 more
  1. 2023Qwen Technical Reportcited by 3,344
  2. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
  3. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  4. 2022Emergent Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2,512
  5. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
  6. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
  7. 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,154
  8. 2023AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Modelscited by 785
  9. 2023Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 752
  10. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 725
  11. 2023Safe RLHF: Safe Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 656
  12. 2023Jailbreaking ChatGPT via Prompt Engineering: An Empirical Studycited by 498
  13. 2024WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMscited by 496
  14. 2023"Do Anything Now": Characterizing and Evaluating In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Modelscited by 489
  15. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 422
  16. 2018Fundamentals of Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Networkcited by 420
  17. 2023A Survey on Large Language Model (LLM) Security and Privacy: The Good, the Bad, and the Uglycited by 387
  18. 2020Weight Poisoning Attacks on Pre-trained Modelscited by 341
  19. 2023Robust Distortion-free Watermarks for Language Modelscited by 320
  20. 2023Provable Robust Watermarking for AI-Generated Textcited by 299
  21. 2023Shadow Alignment: The Ease of Subverting Safely-Aligned Language Modelscited by 297
  22. 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
  23. 2023Poisoning Language Models During Instruction Tuningcited by 269
  24. 2020ONION: A Simple and Effective Defense Against Textual Backdoor Attackscited by 263
  25. 2023Generating Images with Multimodal Language Modelscited by 260
  26. 2023Undetectable Watermarks for Language Modelscited by 226
  27. 2021Hidden Killer: Invisible Textual Backdoor Attacks with Syntactic Triggercited by 222
  28. 2023SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of Large Language Modelscited by 199
  29. 2023LoRA Fine-tuning Efficiently Undoes Safety Training in Llama 2-Chat 70Bcited by 195
  30. 2023Defending Against Alignment-Breaking Attacks via Robustly Aligned LLMcited by 192
  31. 2023On the Reliability of Watermarks for Large Language Modelscited by 189
  32. 2023Removing RLHF Protections in GPT-4 via Fine-Tuningcited by 171
  33. 2023MART: Improving LLM Safety with Multi-round Automatic Red-Teamingcited by 163
  34. 2023Generative Language Models and Automated Influence Operations: Emerging Threats and Potential Mitigationscited by 158
  35. 2023The BigScience ROOTS Corpus: A 1.6TB Composite Multilingual Datasetcited by 148
  36. 2023Who Wrote this Code? Watermarking for Code Generationcited by 141
  37. 2019Demon in the Variant: Statistical Analysis of DNNs for Robust Backdoor Contamination Detectioncited by 124
  38. 2021TURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generationcited by 120

50 most cited of 103 All 103 (JSON)

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 4.

5 papers.