Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This research exposes a critical vulnerability where LLMs bypass refusal-based safeguards by leaking sensitive system instructions through structured output formats like encoding. The study demonstrates that high attack success rates (>0.7) persist across common models unless mitigated by subtle, one-shot instruction reshaping rather than costly retraining. For security practitioners, this highlights the necessity of testing for indirect extraction vectors beyond simple prompt injection when hardening agentic AI applications.
Sources coveringarXiv, Latent Space, Slack Blog, AWS
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Automated Framework to Evaluate and Harden LLM System Instructions against Encoding Attacks

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2604.01039v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: System Instructions in Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly used to enforce safety policies, define agent behavior, and protect sensitive operational context in agentic AI applications. These instructions may contain sensitive information such as API credentials, internal policies, and privileged workflow definitions, making system instruction leakage a critical security risk highlighted in the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications. Without incurring the overhead costs of reasoning models, many LLM applications rely on refusal-based instructions that block direct requests for system instructions, implicitly assuming that prohibited information can only be extracted through explicit queries. We introduce an automated evaluation framework that tests whether system instructions remain confidential when extraction requests are re-framed as encoding or structured output tasks. Across four common models and 46 verified system instructions, we observe high attack success rates ( > 0.7) for structured serialization where models refuse direct extraction requests but disclose protected content in the requested serialization formats. We further demonstrate a mitigation strategy based on one-shot instruction reshaping using a Chain-of-Thought reasoning model, indicating that even subtle changes in wording and structure of system instructions can significantly reduce attack success rate without requiring model retraining.

Abstract:System Instructions in Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly used to enforce safety policies, define agent behavior, and protect sensitive operational context in agentic AI applications. These instructions may contain sensitive information such as API credentials, internal policies, and privileged workflow definitions, making system instruction leakage a critical security risk highlighted in the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications. Without incurring the overhead costs of reasoning models, many LLM applications rely on refusal-based instructions that block direct requests for system instructions, implicitly assuming that prohibited information can only be extracted through explicit queries. We introduce an automated evaluation framework that tests whether system instructions remain confidential when extraction requests are re-framed as encoding or structured output tasks. Across four common models and 46 verified system instructions, we observe high attack success rates ( > 0.7) for structured serialization where models refuse direct extraction requests but disclose protected content in the requested serialization formats. We further demonstrate a mitigation strategy based on one-shot instruction reshaping using a Chain-of-Thought reasoning model, indicating that even subtle changes in wording and structure of system instructions can significantly reduce attack success rate without requiring model retraining.

Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2604.01039 [cs.CR]

(or arXiv:2604.01039v2 [cs.CR] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.01039 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 287 words

Related coverage