mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Enterprise AI Must Enforce Participant-Aware Access Control

arXiv 2509.14608 ↗First posted 18 Sep 2025cs.CR cs.AIcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in enterprise settings where they interact with multiple users and are trained or fine-tuned on sensitive internal data. While fine-tuning enhances performance by internalizing domain knowledge, it also introduces a critical security risk: leakage of confidential training data to unauthorized users. These risks are exacerbated when LLMs are combined with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines that dynamically fetch contextual documents at inference time. We demonstrate data exfiltration attacks on AI assistants where adversaries can exploit current fine-tuning and RAG architectures to leak sensitive information by leveraging the lack of access control enforcement. We show that existing defenses, including prompt sanitization, output filtering, system isolation, and training-level privacy mechanisms, are fundamentally probabilistic and fail to offer robust protection against such attacks. We take the position that only a deterministic and rigorous enforcement of fine-grained access control during both fine-tuning and RAG-based inference can reliably prevent the leakage of sensitive data to unauthorized recipients. We introduce a framework centered on the principle that any content used in training, retrieval, or generation by an LLM is explicitly authorized for all users involved in the interaction. Our approach offers a simple yet powerful paradigm shift for building secure multi-user LLM systems that are grounded in classical access control but adapted to the unique challenges of modern AI workflows. Our solution has been deployed in Microsoft Copilot Tuning, a product offering that enables organizations to fine-tune models using their own enterprise-specific data.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 35 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Sep 2025.

Builds on

35 of 56 references.

References · 35

  1. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
  2. 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,144
  3. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
  4. 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 760
  5. 2022Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Modelscited by 755
  6. 2023Extracting Training Data from Diffusion Modelscited by 723
  7. 2021Deduplicating Training Data Makes Language Models Bettercited by 705
  8. 2023Scalable Extraction of Training Data from (Production) Language Modelscited by 415
  9. 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 347
  10. 2022Deduplicating Training Data Mitigates Privacy Risks in Language Modelscited by 309
  11. 2023Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Modelscited by 278
  12. 2023Benchmarking and Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Modelscited by 237
23 more
  1. 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlightingcited by 233
  2. 2022Memorization Without Overfitting: Analyzing the Training Dynamics of Large Language Modelscited by 218
  3. 2019MemGuard: Defending against Black-Box Membership Inference Attacks via Adversarial Examplescited by 183
  4. 2024SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimizationcited by 179
  5. 2022Quantifying Privacy Risks of Masked Language Models Using Membership Inference Attackscited by 168
  6. 2021How much do language models copy from their training data? Evaluating linguistic novelty in text generation using RAVENcited by 124
  7. 2025DataSentinel: A Game-Theoretic Detection of Prompt Injection Attackscited by 124
  8. 2023Practical Membership Inference Attacks against Fine-tuned Large Language Models via Self-prompt Calibrationcited by 90
  9. 2023Jatmo: Prompt Injection Defense by Task-Specific Finetuningcited by 89
  10. 2024RAG vs Fine-tuning: Pipelines, Tradeoffs, and a Case Study on Agriculturecited by 80
  11. 2022Efficient Methods for Natural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 78
  12. 2023Attack Prompt Generation for Red Teaming and Defending Large Language Modelscited by 73
  13. 2020Training Production Language Models without Memorizing User Datacited by 68
  14. 2025RTBAS: Defending LLM Agents Against Prompt Injection and Privacy Leakagecited by 64
  15. 2024Get my drift? Catching LLM Task Drift with Activation Deltascited by 61
  16. 2024LLM-PBE: Assessing Data Privacy in Large Language Modelscited by 38
  17. 2023User Inference Attacks on Large Language Modelscited by 36
  18. 2024Permissive Information-Flow Analysis for Large Language Modelscited by 22
  19. 2018Privacy-preserving Machine Learning through Data Obfuscationcited by 18
  20. 2022How to keep text private? A systematic review of deep learning methods for privacy-preserving natural language processingcited by 16
  21. 2024PromptIntern: Saving Inference Costs by Internalizing Recurrent Prompt during Large Language Model Fine-tuningcited by 13
  22. 2023Information Flow Control in Machine Learning through Modular Model Architecturecited by 11
  23. 2024Trust No AI: Prompt Injection Along The CIA Security Triadcited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Exploiting Web Search Tools of AI Agents for Data Exfiltration
  2. 2026Securing Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Taxonomy of Attacks, Defenses, and Future Directions
  3. 2026Your LLM Agent Can Leak Your Data: Data Exfiltration via Backdoored Tool Use
  4. 2024Pirates of the RAG: Adaptively Attacking LLMs to Leak Knowledge Bases
  5. 2026Security and Privacy in Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Architectures, Threats, Defenses, and Future Directions for Building Trustworthy Systems
  6. 2025RAG Security and Privacy: Formalizing the Threat Model and Attack Surface
  7. 2026You Told Me to Do It: Measuring Instructional Text-induced Private Data Leakage in LLM Agents
  8. 2026Securing the Agent: Vendor-Neutral, Multitenant Enterprise Retrieval and Tool Use