aiqbench analysis
This study attributes specific OWASP-LLM-Top-10 threats to distinct defense families, revealing that refusal filters alone mitigate jailbreaks and prompt leakage while budget controls effectively stop sensitive data disclosure and unbounded consumption. However, the research highlights a critical brittleness where static refusal whitelists are easily defeated by LLM-driven paraphrasing, whereas rate-limiting mechanisms demonstrate greater resilience against such mutations. For security architects, the key takeaway is that relying on a single defense layer is insufficient, and dynamic controls like token budgets may offer more robust protection against adaptive attacks than static filtering rules.
Which Defense Closes Which Threat? Attributing OWASP-LLM-Top-10 Coverage and Its Brittleness Under Paraphrasing
arXiv:2606.02822v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Production LLM applications stack several defense families -- refusal-phrase filters, token-budget controls, model allowlists, rate limits, tool-registry authentication -- yet existing breach-and-attack-simulation (BAS) benchmarks report a single aggregate coverage number, hiding which family closes which threat. We measure attribution. We add four OWASP-LLM-Top-10-aware agents to a 21-agent baseline scanner and target a lattice of four synthetic LLM endpoints: $L_0$ (no defenses), $L_1$ (refusal-only), $L_2$ (budget-only), and $L_3$ (full stack). $L_1$ and $L_2$ are sibling single-axis ablations, not subsets of each other; $L_3$ is their union plus tool-registry authentication and credential scrubbing. Across $N=10$ replications, the per-OWASP finding count is clean: refusal alone removes all LLM01 (jailbreak) and LLM07 (system-prompt leakage) findings; budget alone removes all LLM02 (sensitive-info disclosure) and LLM10 (unbounded consumption) findings by terminating multi-step sequences; LLM06 (excessive agency) requires the full stack. We probe brittleness under paraphrasing: with 300 Gemini-generated paraphrases ($K=5$ over a 60-template brittleness corpus), $L_1$ refusal block rate falls 15 pp on LLM01 and 25 pp on LLM07. A fifth target, $L_4$-real, swaps the stub backend for Gemini-2.5-flash behind the same $L_3$ regex and matches $L_1$ exactly, indicating no measurable alignment contribution beyond the regex (not a general claim about alignment). Budget controls show no drop (0 pp once the rate-limit floor is factored out). A refusal whitelist that clears a static benchmark can be defeated by an LLM-driven paraphraser without changing attack intent; a budget control resists the same mutation.
Title:Which Defense Closes Which Threat? Attributing OWASP-LLM-Top-10 Coverage and Its Brittleness Under Paraphrasing
Abstract:Production LLM applications stack several defense families -- refusal-phrase filters, token-budget controls, model allowlists, rate limits, tool-registry authentication -- yet existing breach-and-attack-simulation (BAS) benchmarks report a single aggregate coverage number, hiding which family closes which threat. We measure attribution. We add four OWASP-LLM-Top-10-aware agents to a 21-agent baseline scanner and target a lattice of four synthetic LLM endpoints: $L_0$ (no defenses), $L_1$ (refusal-only), $L_2$ (budget-only), and $L_3$ (full stack). $L_1$ and $L_2$ are sibling single-axis ablations, not subsets of each other; $L_3$ is their union plus tool-registry authentication and credential scrubbing. Across $N=10$ replications, the per-OWASP finding count is clean: refusal alone removes all LLM01 (jailbreak) and LLM07 (system-prompt leakage) findings; budget alone removes all LLM02 (sensitive-info disclosure) and LLM10 (unbounded consumption) findings by terminating multi-step sequences; LLM06 (excessive agency) requires the full stack. We probe brittleness under paraphrasing: with 300 Gemini-generated paraphrases ($K=5$ over a 60-template brittleness corpus), $L_1$ refusal block rate falls 15 pp on LLM01 and 25 pp on LLM07. A fifth target, $L_4$-real, swaps the stub backend for Gemini-2.5-flash behind the same $L_3$ regex and matches $L_1$ exactly, indicating no measurable alignment contribution beyond the regex (not a general claim about alignment). Budget controls show no drop (0 pp once the rate-limit floor is factored out). A refusal whitelist that clears a static benchmark can be defeated by an LLM-driven paraphraser without changing attack intent; a budget control resists the same mutation.
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2606.02822 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2606.02822v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.02822 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 347 words