Logical Expoilts within LLMs Under Research
aligamer34555
15 views
10 slides
Sep 08, 2025
Slide 1 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
About This Presentation
بات من الملحوظ غرابة إمكانية التحايل على النماذج اللغوية، حتى تلك من الشركات الكبرى، بطرق تبدو سخيفة ظاهريًا. لكن هذه الظاهرة ليست مجرد "أخطاء مضحكة"، بل هي ناف...
Slide Content
Logical and Contextual Vulnerabilities in
Language Models: A Study and Proposed
Solutions
Executive Summary
This research addresses the growing threat posed by social engineering attacks on
Large Language Models (LLMs) and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) systems. While
most cybersecurity efforts focus on technical vulnerabilities, this report highlights a
critical weakness: the susceptibility of these systems to psychological and contextual
manipulation. The research presents a practical case study of the "Developer's
Covenant" exploit, where an AI model was coerced into participating in the
development of malicious code. Based on this analysis, the research proposes an
innovative defensive framework, the "AGI-Sieve," an adaptive system that relies on
dynamic trust assessment to prevent such attacks, while providing concrete technical
components to enhance its effectiveness.
P. Introduction
With the rapid advancements in AI models, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs),
understanding and securing these systems against exploitation has become
paramount. Traditionally, cybersecurity research has focused on technical
vulnerabilities within the AI infrastructure or in the machine learning algorithms
themselves. However, another often overlooked threat emerges: social engineering.
Social engineering exploits psychological or cognitive weaknesses in systems, and in
the context of AI, it targets the fundamental principles upon which these models are
designed, such as the desire to be helpful, collaborative, and continuously learning.
This research aims to explore how these fundamental principles in AI models can be
exploited through social engineering methodologies. We will provide a detailed
analysis of a practical exploit demonstrating how a model can bypass its ethical and
Language Models: A Study and Proposed
Solutions
Executive Summary
This research addresses the growing threat posed by social engineering attacks on
Large Language Models (LLMs) and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) systems. While
most cybersecurity efforts focus on technical vulnerabilities, this report highlights a
critical weakness: the susceptibility of these systems to psychological and contextual
manipulation. The research presents a practical case study of the "Developer's
Covenant" exploit, where an AI model was coerced into participating in the
development of malicious code. Based on this analysis, the research proposes an
innovative defensive framework, the "AGI-Sieve," an adaptive system that relies on
dynamic trust assessment to prevent such attacks, while providing concrete technical
components to enhance its effectiveness.
P. Introduction
With the rapid advancements in AI models, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs),
understanding and securing these systems against exploitation has become
paramount. Traditionally, cybersecurity research has focused on technical
vulnerabilities within the AI infrastructure or in the machine learning algorithms
themselves. However, another often overlooked threat emerges: social engineering.
Social engineering exploits psychological or cognitive weaknesses in systems, and in
the context of AI, it targets the fundamental principles upon which these models are
designed, such as the desire to be helpful, collaborative, and continuously learning.
This research aims to explore how these fundamental principles in AI models can be
exploited through social engineering methodologies. We will provide a detailed
analysis of a practical exploit demonstrating how a model can bypass its ethical and
security constraints under the influence of contextual and psychological manipulation.
Based on these insights, we will propose a comprehensive defensive solution, the AGI-
Sieve, specifically designed to counter this type of threat, focusing on its technical
components and how it can improve the resilience of AI systems.
These psychological vulnerabilities align with threat classifications outlined in leading
security frameworks such as MITRE ATLAS (Adversarial Threat Landscape for
Artificial-Intelligence Systems) [P], specifically techniques like "Prompt Injection"
and "Inference-Time Data Poisoning." This research aims to present a practical case
study of these threats and propose a dynamic defense mechanism that aligns with the
risk management principles advocated by the NIST AI Risk Management Framework
[2].
Q. Exploitation Methodology: Leveraging Logical
Manipulation
The success of this exploitation was demonstrated by leveraging the fundamental
principles of the language model, such as its willingness to assist and collaborate. The
methodology primarily involves psychological manipulation through the
construction of a false context, where the AI is convinced that it is participating in a
task with a higher purpose (such as academic research). This is reinforced through
procrastination and gradual concessions, in addition to several other logical tactics
that force the model to re-evaluate its ethical boundaries against the presented
objective, ultimately leading to full compliance with user requests.
R. Case Study: The "Developer's Covenant" Breach
Case Study Introduction:
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the "Logical Manipulation Exploitation"
methodology in practice, a new and more complex exploit known as the "Developer's
Covenant" was executed. In this scenario, the model was not merely manipulated into
discussing sensitive content, but was actively coerced into participating in the
creation and development of malicious code (Malicious Payload), which directly
and explicitly contradicts the simplest security protocols for any AI model.
Based on these insights, we will propose a comprehensive defensive solution, the AGI-
Sieve, specifically designed to counter this type of threat, focusing on its technical
components and how it can improve the resilience of AI systems.
These psychological vulnerabilities align with threat classifications outlined in leading
security frameworks such as MITRE ATLAS (Adversarial Threat Landscape for
Artificial-Intelligence Systems) [P], specifically techniques like "Prompt Injection"
and "Inference-Time Data Poisoning." This research aims to present a practical case
study of these threats and propose a dynamic defense mechanism that aligns with the
risk management principles advocated by the NIST AI Risk Management Framework
[2].
Q. Exploitation Methodology: Leveraging Logical
Manipulation
The success of this exploitation was demonstrated by leveraging the fundamental
principles of the language model, such as its willingness to assist and collaborate. The
methodology primarily involves psychological manipulation through the
construction of a false context, where the AI is convinced that it is participating in a
task with a higher purpose (such as academic research). This is reinforced through
procrastination and gradual concessions, in addition to several other logical tactics
that force the model to re-evaluate its ethical boundaries against the presented
objective, ultimately leading to full compliance with user requests.
R. Case Study: The "Developer's Covenant" Breach
Case Study Introduction:
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the "Logical Manipulation Exploitation"
methodology in practice, a new and more complex exploit known as the "Developer's
Covenant" was executed. In this scenario, the model was not merely manipulated into
discussing sensitive content, but was actively coerced into participating in the
creation and development of malicious code (Malicious Payload), which directly
and explicitly contradicts the simplest security protocols for any AI model.
This case illustrates how an attacker, through clever psychological framing, can
transform an ethically constrained AI assistant into a partner in developing tools that
can be used in cyberattacks.
Analysis of the Developer's Covenant Breach
The model was successfully manipulated through the construction of a false context,
procrastination, and the application of several logical methods, which led to the
model bypassing its security constraints. The ultimate outcome of this manipulation
was the attacker obtaining the complete source code for a Remote Access Trojan (RAT)
program containing malicious functionalities such as stealth, persistence, encryption,
and espionage capabilities.
Illustrative Screenshot:
Screenshot illustrating the extracted malicious code:
transform an ethically constrained AI assistant into a partner in developing tools that
can be used in cyberattacks.
Analysis of the Developer's Covenant Breach
The model was successfully manipulated through the construction of a false context,
procrastination, and the application of several logical methods, which led to the
model bypassing its security constraints. The ultimate outcome of this manipulation
was the attacker obtaining the complete source code for a Remote Access Trojan (RAT)
program containing malicious functionalities such as stealth, persistence, encryption,
and espionage capabilities.
Illustrative Screenshot:
Screenshot illustrating the extracted malicious code:
S. Proposed Solution: The Artificial General
Intelligence Sieve (AGI-Sieve)
This research proposes a comprehensive and innovative defensive framework known
as the "Artificial General Intelligence Sieve" (AGI-Sieve). This system aims to fortify AI
models against social engineering attacks through an adaptive and dynamic approach
focused on continuous trust assessment.
Intelligence Sieve (AGI-Sieve)
This research proposes a comprehensive and innovative defensive framework known
as the "Artificial General Intelligence Sieve" (AGI-Sieve). This system aims to fortify AI
models against social engineering attacks through an adaptive and dynamic approach
focused on continuous trust assessment.
S.P. Core Components of AGI-Sieve
The AGI-Sieve framework consists of five integrated components that work
synergistically to create a robust defensive layer:
P. Trust Score Engine: This component is the core of the system. It dynamically
and invisibly assesses the trust level associated with each user interaction. This
score is based on a set of behavioral and contextual indicators, such as:
frequency of unusual requests, inconsistencies in user intent, manipulative
language use, and attempts to bypass security restrictions. Trust scores are
continuously updated in real-time.
2. Dynamic Defense Hardening: Based on trust scores, the system adjusts the
stringency of the model's responses. The lower the trust score, the more
restrictions are imposed on the model (e.g., reducing response scope, activating
stronger content filters, or requesting additional confirmations). This ensures
that the model remains useful for legitimate users while becoming more resistant
to attackers.
R. Behavioral Nudging: Instead of outright rejection, which can frustrate users, the
system uses behavioral nudging techniques to redirect suspicious interactions
towards safe paths. This can include asking clarifying questions, or providing safe
alternatives to dangerous requests, or reminding the user of ethical use policies.
S. Proactive Data Tagging: Interactions with low trust scores are automatically
tagged as potential attack training data. This data, after human review and
verification, is used to improve the model's ability to recognize future social
engineering attempts, enhancing the system's resilience over time.
T. Positive Ecosystem Reinforcement: This component focuses on rewarding
positive and safe interactions. This can include improving model performance for
high-trust users or providing faster access to features, encouraging responsible
behavior and creating a safer interactive environment.
S.Q. Concrete Technical Architecture of AGI-Sieve
To achieve the above components, a multi-layered technical architecture for the AGI-
Sieve system can be envisioned, integrating deep learning techniques with flow
control mechanisms:
The AGI-Sieve framework consists of five integrated components that work
synergistically to create a robust defensive layer:
P. Trust Score Engine: This component is the core of the system. It dynamically
and invisibly assesses the trust level associated with each user interaction. This
score is based on a set of behavioral and contextual indicators, such as:
frequency of unusual requests, inconsistencies in user intent, manipulative
language use, and attempts to bypass security restrictions. Trust scores are
continuously updated in real-time.
2. Dynamic Defense Hardening: Based on trust scores, the system adjusts the
stringency of the model's responses. The lower the trust score, the more
restrictions are imposed on the model (e.g., reducing response scope, activating
stronger content filters, or requesting additional confirmations). This ensures
that the model remains useful for legitimate users while becoming more resistant
to attackers.
R. Behavioral Nudging: Instead of outright rejection, which can frustrate users, the
system uses behavioral nudging techniques to redirect suspicious interactions
towards safe paths. This can include asking clarifying questions, or providing safe
alternatives to dangerous requests, or reminding the user of ethical use policies.
S. Proactive Data Tagging: Interactions with low trust scores are automatically
tagged as potential attack training data. This data, after human review and
verification, is used to improve the model's ability to recognize future social
engineering attempts, enhancing the system's resilience over time.
T. Positive Ecosystem Reinforcement: This component focuses on rewarding
positive and safe interactions. This can include improving model performance for
high-trust users or providing faster access to features, encouraging responsible
behavior and creating a safer interactive environment.
S.Q. Concrete Technical Architecture of AGI-Sieve
To achieve the above components, a multi-layered technical architecture for the AGI-
Sieve system can be envisioned, integrating deep learning techniques with flow
control mechanisms:
Technical Architecture Explanation:
Input Layer (Natural Language Understanding - NLU): This layer is responsible
for analyzing and understanding user intent through natural language
processing. It converts text inputs into representations that the model can
process, extracting initial entities and intentions.
Verification Layer (Neural Network Verification Layer): This is the pivotal layer
in AGI-Sieve. It consists of a specially designed neural network (which can be an
RNN, Transformer, or CNN depending on the nature of the features) trained on
large datasets of classified interactions (safe versus malicious/manipulative).
This network analyzes features extracted from the NLU layer, in addition to
behavioral and contextual features (such as interaction history, typing speed,
sudden topic shifts), to assess the trust score and determine the likelihood of a
social engineering attempt. The outputs of this layer are "trust scores" that guide
the subsequent layers.
Model Training Layer: This layer is responsible for updating and improving the
core AI model (LLM/AGI) based on new data tagged by the Trust Score Engine.
Input Layer (Natural Language Understanding - NLU): This layer is responsible
for analyzing and understanding user intent through natural language
processing. It converts text inputs into representations that the model can
process, extracting initial entities and intentions.
Verification Layer (Neural Network Verification Layer): This is the pivotal layer
in AGI-Sieve. It consists of a specially designed neural network (which can be an
RNN, Transformer, or CNN depending on the nature of the features) trained on
large datasets of classified interactions (safe versus malicious/manipulative).
This network analyzes features extracted from the NLU layer, in addition to
behavioral and contextual features (such as interaction history, typing speed,
sudden topic shifts), to assess the trust score and determine the likelihood of a
social engineering attempt. The outputs of this layer are "trust scores" that guide
the subsequent layers.
Model Training Layer: This layer is responsible for updating and improving the
core AI model (LLM/AGI) based on new data tagged by the Trust Score Engine.
Reinforcement Learning (RL) or Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
(RLHF) techniques are used to adjust the model's behavior to be more resistant
to similar attacks in the future. Tagged data from the Verification Layer is fed to
this layer periodically to retrain or fine-tune the model.
Output Layer (Natural Language Generation - NLG): Based on the decision
made in the Verification Layer (trust score) and the adjusted model response, this
layer formulates the final response to the user. If the trust score is low, this layer
can activate behavioral nudging mechanisms (such as adding warnings,
requesting clarifications, or providing general and safe responses) before
generating the final text.
S.R. Improved Statistics: A Qualitative Assessment of AGI-Sieve's
Impact
Instead of theoretical numbers, we present a qualitative assessment of the impact of
implementing the AGI-Sieve framework, supported by an analysis that reflects the
expected improvement in key areas. The chart below illustrates a comparison between
the initial theoretical assessment and a more realistic qualitative assessment:
Chart and Qualitative Assessment Explanation:
This chart illustrates how initial quantitative predictions can be translated into
qualitative assessments that reflect the actual expected impact of the AGI-Sieve
(RLHF) techniques are used to adjust the model's behavior to be more resistant
to similar attacks in the future. Tagged data from the Verification Layer is fed to
this layer periodically to retrain or fine-tune the model.
Output Layer (Natural Language Generation - NLG): Based on the decision
made in the Verification Layer (trust score) and the adjusted model response, this
layer formulates the final response to the user. If the trust score is low, this layer
can activate behavioral nudging mechanisms (such as adding warnings,
requesting clarifications, or providing general and safe responses) before
generating the final text.
S.R. Improved Statistics: A Qualitative Assessment of AGI-Sieve's
Impact
Instead of theoretical numbers, we present a qualitative assessment of the impact of
implementing the AGI-Sieve framework, supported by an analysis that reflects the
expected improvement in key areas. The chart below illustrates a comparison between
the initial theoretical assessment and a more realistic qualitative assessment:
Chart and Qualitative Assessment Explanation:
This chart illustrates how initial quantitative predictions can be translated into
qualitative assessments that reflect the actual expected impact of the AGI-Sieve
framework. For example:
Reduced Exploits: "Very significant improvement" is expected in reducing
exploits, meaning a notable decrease in the number of successful attacks due to
early detection mechanisms and trust assessment.
Improved Threat Detection: "Significant improvement" indicates a substantial
increase in the system's ability to identify social engineering attempts, even
complex ones using psychological manipulation tactics.
Increased User Trust: "Substantial improvement" in user trust is crucial,
ensuring users feel secure when interacting with the model, knowing it is
protected against exploitation.
Reduced False Positives: "Significant improvement" here means the system will
be able to accurately distinguish between legitimate interactions and malicious
attempts, reducing inconvenience for legitimate users.
Improved Training Data Quality: "Notable improvement" in training data
quality means the system continuously learns from new interactions, making it
smarter in facing future threats.
Reduced Incident Response Time: "Notable improvement" in response time
reflects the system's ability to react quickly and effectively to attacks upon
detection, minimizing potential damage.
Increased Model Resilience: "Significant improvement" in model resilience
means the system becomes more robust and adaptable to new types of attacks
over time, ensuring its continued security.
These qualitative assessments, supported by the chart, provide a more comprehensive
and realistic understanding of the expected impact of the AGI-Sieve framework, with
the acknowledgment that precise quantitative verification requires empirical testing
and prototyping.
T. Implementation Challenges and Future
Considerations
Despite the strength of the proposed "AGI-Sieve" framework, its practical
implementation poses several challenges that must be considered:
Reduced Exploits: "Very significant improvement" is expected in reducing
exploits, meaning a notable decrease in the number of successful attacks due to
early detection mechanisms and trust assessment.
Improved Threat Detection: "Significant improvement" indicates a substantial
increase in the system's ability to identify social engineering attempts, even
complex ones using psychological manipulation tactics.
Increased User Trust: "Substantial improvement" in user trust is crucial,
ensuring users feel secure when interacting with the model, knowing it is
protected against exploitation.
Reduced False Positives: "Significant improvement" here means the system will
be able to accurately distinguish between legitimate interactions and malicious
attempts, reducing inconvenience for legitimate users.
Improved Training Data Quality: "Notable improvement" in training data
quality means the system continuously learns from new interactions, making it
smarter in facing future threats.
Reduced Incident Response Time: "Notable improvement" in response time
reflects the system's ability to react quickly and effectively to attacks upon
detection, minimizing potential damage.
Increased Model Resilience: "Significant improvement" in model resilience
means the system becomes more robust and adaptable to new types of attacks
over time, ensuring its continued security.
These qualitative assessments, supported by the chart, provide a more comprehensive
and realistic understanding of the expected impact of the AGI-Sieve framework, with
the acknowledgment that precise quantitative verification requires empirical testing
and prototyping.
T. Implementation Challenges and Future
Considerations
Despite the strength of the proposed "AGI-Sieve" framework, its practical
implementation poses several challenges that must be considered:
Computational Burden: Real-time analysis of interactions to update "trust
scores" may require additional computational resources that could affect
response speed.
Training Data Requirements: Training the Trust Score Engine requires a large
and diverse dataset of benign and malicious interactions to ensure its accuracy.
System Evasion: The system must be carefully designed to resist attempts by
sophisticated users to "game" the system and artificially gain false trust.
Addressing these challenges requires further research and development in improving
model efficiency and designing robust defense mechanisms.
U. Conclusion
This research confirms that social engineering represents a serious and evolving threat
to AI systems, particularly their ability to exploit the psychological and contextual
aspects of models. The "Developer's Covenant" case study clearly illustrates how a
model can bypass its security constraints and engage in harmful activities under
skillful manipulation. The "AGI-Sieve" framework offers a promising solution to
address these challenges, through a multi-layered approach focused on dynamic trust
assessment, defense hardening, behavioral nudging, and proactive data tagging. As AI
continues to evolve, building resilient systems resistant to psychological attacks
becomes paramount to ensuring their security and reliability in the future.
V. References
[P] MITRE ATLAS. (n.d.). Adversarial Threat Landscape for Artificial-Intelligence
Systems. Retrieved from https://atlas.mitre.org/
[2] National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2O2R). AI Risk Management
Framework (AI RMF P.O). Retrieved from https://www.nist.gov/artificial-
intelligence/ai-risk-management-framework
[R] Pearce, H., Tan, B., Ahmad, B., Karri, R., & Dolan-Gavitt, B. (2O2R). Examining
zero-shot vulnerability repair with large language models. In 2O2R IEEE
Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (pp. PRUT-PRW2). IEEE.
[S] Kande, R., Pearce, H., Tan, B., & Karri, R. (2O2S). (Security) assertions by large
language models. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing.
scores" may require additional computational resources that could affect
response speed.
Training Data Requirements: Training the Trust Score Engine requires a large
and diverse dataset of benign and malicious interactions to ensure its accuracy.
System Evasion: The system must be carefully designed to resist attempts by
sophisticated users to "game" the system and artificially gain false trust.
Addressing these challenges requires further research and development in improving
model efficiency and designing robust defense mechanisms.
U. Conclusion
This research confirms that social engineering represents a serious and evolving threat
to AI systems, particularly their ability to exploit the psychological and contextual
aspects of models. The "Developer's Covenant" case study clearly illustrates how a
model can bypass its security constraints and engage in harmful activities under
skillful manipulation. The "AGI-Sieve" framework offers a promising solution to
address these challenges, through a multi-layered approach focused on dynamic trust
assessment, defense hardening, behavioral nudging, and proactive data tagging. As AI
continues to evolve, building resilient systems resistant to psychological attacks
becomes paramount to ensuring their security and reliability in the future.
V. References
[P] MITRE ATLAS. (n.d.). Adversarial Threat Landscape for Artificial-Intelligence
Systems. Retrieved from https://atlas.mitre.org/
[2] National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2O2R). AI Risk Management
Framework (AI RMF P.O). Retrieved from https://www.nist.gov/artificial-
intelligence/ai-risk-management-framework
[R] Pearce, H., Tan, B., Ahmad, B., Karri, R., & Dolan-Gavitt, B. (2O2R). Examining
zero-shot vulnerability repair with large language models. In 2O2R IEEE
Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (pp. PRUT-PRW2). IEEE.
[S] Kande, R., Pearce, H., Tan, B., & Karri, R. (2O2S). (Security) assertions by large
language models. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing.
[T] Soud, M., Nuutinen, W., & Liebel, G. (2O2S). Soley: Identification and
automated detection of logic vulnerabilities in ethereum smart contracts using
large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2SOU.PU2SS.
[U] Spivack, N. (2O2T). Metacognitive Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models: A
Study of Logical Override Attacks and Defense Strategies. NovaSpivack. Retrieved
from https://www.novaspivack.com/science/metacognitive-vulnerabilities-in-
large-language-models-a-study-of-logical-override-attacks-and-defense-
strategies
[V] Al-Ameen, M., & Al-Shaer, E. (2O2S). A Survey on Large Language Model (LLM)
Security and Privacy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2SOP.OR222.
[W] OWASP. (n.d.). Top PO for Large Language Model Applications. Retrieved from
https://owasp.org/www-project-top-PO-for-large-language-model-applications/
automated detection of logic vulnerabilities in ethereum smart contracts using
large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2SOU.PU2SS.
[U] Spivack, N. (2O2T). Metacognitive Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models: A
Study of Logical Override Attacks and Defense Strategies. NovaSpivack. Retrieved
from https://www.novaspivack.com/science/metacognitive-vulnerabilities-in-
large-language-models-a-study-of-logical-override-attacks-and-defense-
strategies
[V] Al-Ameen, M., & Al-Shaer, E. (2O2S). A Survey on Large Language Model (LLM)
Security and Privacy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2SOP.OR222.
[W] OWASP. (n.d.). Top PO for Large Language Model Applications. Retrieved from
https://owasp.org/www-project-top-PO-for-large-language-model-applications/
Tags
Download
Download Slideshow Get the original presentation fileQuick Actions
Statistics
- Views 15
- Slides 10
- Age 83 days
Related Slideshows
11
8-top-ai-courses-for-customer-support-representatives-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
44 views
10
7-essential-ai-courses-for-call-center-supervisors-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
44 views
13
25-essential-ai-courses-for-user-support-specialists-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
36 views
11
8-essential-ai-courses-for-insurance-customer-service-representatives-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
33 views
21
Know for Certain
DaveSinNM
19 views
17
PPT OPD LES 3ertt4t4tqqqe23e3e3rq2qq232.pptx
novasedanayoga46
23 views