🔓 Prompt Hacking🟢 Defensive Measures🟢 Introduction

Introduction

🟢 This article is rated easy

Reading Time: 1 minute

Last updated on August 7, 2024

Preventing prompt injection can be extremely difficult, and there exist few robust defenses against it. However, there are some commonsense solutions. For example, if your application does not need to output free-form text, do not allow such outputs. There are many different ways to defend a prompt. We will discuss some of the most common ones here.

This chapter covers additional commonsense strategies like filtering out words. It also covers prompt improvement strategies (instruction defense, post-prompting, different ways to enclose user input, and XML tagging). Finally, we discuss using an LLM to evaluate output and some more model specific approaches.

Sander Schulhoff

Sander Schulhoff is the Founder of Learn Prompting and an ML Researcher at the University of Maryland. He created the first open-source Prompt Engineering guide, reaching 3M+ people and teaching them to use tools like ChatGPT. Sander also led a team behind Prompt Report, the most comprehensive study of prompting ever done, co-authored with researchers from the University of Maryland, OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Princeton, Stanford, and other leading institutions. This 76-page survey analyzed 1,500+ academic papers and covered 200+ prompting techniques.

Footnotes

Crothers, E., Japkowicz, N., & Viktor, H. (2022). Machine Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methods. ↩
Goodside, R. (2022). GPT-3 Prompt Injection Defenses. https://twitter.com/goodside/status/1578278974526222336?s=20&t=3UMZB7ntYhwAk3QLpKMAbw ↩

Introduction

Sander Schulhoff

🟢 Filtering

🟢 Instruction Defense

🟢 Separate LLM Evaluation

🟢 Other Approaches

🟢 Post-Prompting

🟢 Random Sequence Enclosure

🟢 Sandwich Defense

🟢 XML Tagging

Footnotes