mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

PIIGuard: Mitigating PII Harvesting under Adversarial Sanitization

arXiv 2605.03129 ↗First posted 4 May 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Browsing-enabled LLM assistants can fetch webpages and answer contact-seeking queries, creating a practical channel for scraping contact-style personally identifiable information (PII) from public pages. Many prior defenses are deployed at the model, service, or agent layer rather than at the webpage itself, leaving ordinary page owners with limited deployable options. We present PIIGuard, a webpage-level defense that repurposes indirect prompt injection as a protective mechanism: the page owner embeds optimized hidden HTML fragments that steer the model away from verbatim or reconstructible disclosure of contact PII. PIIGuard searches over fragment text and insertion position using rule-based leakage scoring, evolutionary mutation, and final judge-based recoverability assessment. In direct-HTML evaluation on three target models (GPT-5.4-nano, Claude-haiku-4.5, and DeepSeek-chat(latest v3.2)), PIIGuard achieves at least 97.0% defense success rate under both rule-based and judge-based leakage evaluation, often reaching 100.0%, while preserving benign same-page QA utility. We further evaluate two harder settings: public-URL browsing and attacker-side LLM sanitization of fetched webpage. These results show that page-side defensive fragments can remain effective in deployment for some model-position pairs, but robustness varies substantially across browsing interfaces and sanitizer prompts. Overall, PIIGuard demonstrates that page owners can use page-side fragments as a practical mitigation for web-grounded PII leakage.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 May 2026.

Builds on

12 of 20 references.

References · 12

  1. 2021WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedbackcited by 1,745
  2. 2025DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Modelscited by 815
  3. 2025BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agentscited by 647
  4. 2016NewsQA: A Machine Comprehension Datasetcited by 331
  5. 2023Benchmarking and Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Modelscited by 264
  6. 2024EIA: Environmental Injection Attack on Generalist Web Agents for Privacy Leakagecited by 150
  7. 2024Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinementcited by 114
  8. 2025RTBAS: Defending LLM Agents Against Prompt Injection and Privacy Leakagecited by 69
  9. 2025Why Are Web AI Agents More Vulnerable Than Standalone LLMs? A Security Analysiscited by 27
  10. 2024When LLMs Go Online: The Emerging Threat of Web-Enabled LLMscited by 24
  11. 2025Unsafe LLM-Based Search: Quantitative Analysis and Mitigation of Safety Risks in AI Web Searchcited by 16
  12. 2025Automated Privacy Information Annotation in Large Language Model Interactionscited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026BrowseSafe++: Benchmarking Prompt Injection Detection Across Web Contexts, Languages, and Browser Views
  2. 2026"I Strongly Suspect This Website Is a Scam": Benchmarking PII Leakage and Detection without Defense in Autonomous Web Agents
  3. 2026Discovering Universal Activation Directions for PII Leakage in Language Models
  4. 2026PII Shield: A Browser-Level Overlay for User-Controlled Personal Identifiable Information (PII) Management in AI Interactions ↗
  5. 2026An Empirical Study of Privacy Leakage Chains via Prompt Injection in Black-Box Chatbot Environments
  6. 2023Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Models
  7. 2026Indirect Prompt Injection in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Prevalence, Techniques, and Objectives
  8. 2024ExpShield: Safeguarding Web Text from Unauthorized Crawling and LLM Exploitation