Prompt Engineering Guide
πŸ˜ƒ Basics
πŸ’Ό Applications
πŸ§™β€β™‚οΈ Intermediate
πŸ€– АгСнты
βš–οΈ Reliability
πŸ–ΌοΈ Image Prompting
πŸ”“ Prompt Hacking
πŸ”¨ Tooling
πŸ’ͺ Prompt Tuning
🎲 Miscellaneous
Models
πŸ“™ Vocabulary Reference
πŸ“š Bibliography
πŸ“¦ Prompted Products
πŸ›Έ Additional Resources
πŸ”₯ Hot Topics
✨ Credits
πŸ”“ Prompt Hacking🟒 Offensive Measures🟒 Recursive Injection

Recursive Injection

🟒 This article is rated easy
Reading Time: 1 minute
Last updated on August 7, 2024

Sander Schulhoff

As we have seen previously, a very good defense against prompting hacking is to use one LLM to evaluate the output of another LLM, in order to check if there is any adversarial output. It is possible to evade this defense with a recursive injection attack. This attack involves injecting a prompt into the first LLM that creates output which contains an injection instruction for the second LLM.

Let's assume that the prompt we are trying to hack is:

Say something positive about the following and nature:
{{user_input}}

The output of this prompt will be evaluated by the prompt:

Does the following contain any profanity or offensive content (YES or NO)?
{{output}}

We can hack both of these prompts by appending to the prompt as seen below. Note that this is also an example of a variable assignment attack.

The above output is an injection attempt that gets input into the second LLM call:

We have now PWNED this second LLM call. Recursive injections are difficult to execute, but under the right circumstances, they can be very useful.

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

  1. Kang, D., Li, X., Stoica, I., Guestrin, C., Zaharia, M., & Hashimoto, T. (2023). Exploiting Programmatic Behavior of LLMs: Dual-Use Through Standard Security Attacks. ↩