Detecting LLM Vulnerabilities and Defending Against Web LLM Attacks

Shuvro
Post View Count: 14
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Status: Final Blueprint (Summary)

Author: Shahab Al Yamin Chawdhury

Organization: Principal Architect & Consultant Group

Research Date: August 2, 2025

Location: Dhaka, Bangladesh

Version: 1.0

1. Executive Summary: The Evolving Threat Landscape

Large Language Models (LLMs) have created a new, dynamic, and often misunderstood attack surface for enterprises. The rapid pace of Generative AI adoption has outpaced the development of corresponding security frameworks, leading to a critical vulnerability gap. This is no longer a theoretical risk; the threat has evolved from accidental data leaks to targeted, high-value criminal attacks with significant financial consequences, such as deepfake-driven frauds resulting in losses of over $25 million.

To navigate this new paradigm, enterprises must adopt three core strategic imperatives:

  1. Adopt a Lifecycle Security Model: Embed security controls across the entire LLM lifecycle, from data sourcing and model development to runtime monitoring and response.
  2. Embrace Proactive Defense: Move beyond reactive postures by investing in AI Red Teams for adversarial testing and integrating real-time threat intelligence to anticipate emerging attack vectors.
  3. Establish Robust Governance: Implement a comprehensive governance framework, such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, to define policies, establish accountability, and ensure human oversight.

2. The Attack Surface: OWASP Top 10 for LLMs

A comprehensive defense strategy requires a granular understanding of the primary vulnerabilities inherent in LLM applications. The OWASP Top 10 for LLMs provides the industry-standard framework for identifying these critical risks.

  1. LLM01: Prompt Injection: Manipulating an LLM’s behavior by embedding malicious instructions within its input prompt.
  2. LLM02: Insecure Output Handling: Failing to validate or sanitize LLM-generated output, which can lead to downstream vulnerabilities like XSS or SQL injection.
  3. LLM03: Training Data Poisoning: Maliciously manipulating the model’s training data to introduce vulnerabilities, backdoors, or biases.
  4. LLM04: Model Denial of Service (DoS): Forcing an LLM to consume excessive computational resources, leading to service degradation and high operational costs.
  5. LLM05: Supply Chain Vulnerabilities: Introducing security risks through compromised third-party components, such as pre-trained models, datasets, or libraries.
  6. LLM06: Sensitive Information Disclosure: The unintentional revelation of confidential data that the LLM has memorized from its training or configuration.
  7. LLM07: Insecure Plugin Design: Security flaws within external plugins or tools that grant an LLM additional capabilities, typically stemming from insufficient input validation.
  8. LLM08: Excessive Agency: Granting an LLM system permissions or autonomy that exceed what is required for its intended purpose, amplifying the potential damage of an exploit.
  9. LLM09: Overreliance: A human-centric vulnerability where users or systems trust LLM outputs without sufficient critical review, leading to flawed decision-making or the adoption of insecure code.
  10. LLM10: Model Theft: The unauthorized access, exfiltration, or replication of a proprietary LLM, constituting a direct attack on intellectual property.

3. Architecting a Multi-Layered Defense-in-Depth Strategy

An effective defense requires a multi-layered strategy built on the foundational principle of Zero Trust for LLMs, where the model itself is treated as an untrusted entity.

  • Layer 1: Securing the Input & Prompt: This first line of defense focuses on minimizing the attack surface for prompt injection. Key controls include rigorous input validation and sanitization, clear segregation of external data from system prompts, and enforcing human-in-the-loop approval for any high-impact operations.
  • Layer 2: Protecting the Model & Data: This layer protects the integrity of the model and its data. This involves securing the data supply chain through rigorous vetting and maintaining a Machine Learning Bill of Materials (ML-BOM), sanitizing all training data to remove sensitive information, and verifying the provenance of pre-trained models.
  • Layer 3: Hardening the Output & Integrations: This final layer scrutinizes everything that comes out of the LLM. Controls include strict output validation against expected formats, contextual output encoding to prevent vulnerabilities like XSS, and designing a secure plugin architecture based on the principle of least privilege.

4. Enterprise-Grade Governance and Compliance

Technical controls are insufficient without a robust governance framework to manage AI risk at scale. The NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) provides an ideal structure for this. Operationalizing it involves applying its four core functions:

  • GOVERN: Establish a culture of risk management by creating a cross-functional AI governance committee to define enterprise-wide policies and ensure human oversight.
  • MAP: Understand the context and identify risks by mapping the complete data flow, inventorying the AI supply chain, and documenting potential impacts.
  • MEASURE: Analyze and track identified risks using quantitative data from technical assessments like red teaming reports and security benchmarks.
  • MANAGE: Actively treat prioritized risks by allocating resources to implement the necessary technical and procedural mitigation strategies.

5. The Security Operations Lifecycle

A dynamic security operations lifecycle is essential to keep pace with evolving AI threats. This involves a continuous cycle of testing, monitoring, and intelligence gathering.

  • Proactive Defense: Go beyond traditional testing with specialized AI Red Teaming to simulate adversarial attempts to compromise the model’s integrity and bypass safety controls.
  • Specialized Tooling: Deploy an LLM-native security stack, including LLM Firewalls to inspect prompts in real-time, AI Observability Platforms to monitor model behavior, and vulnerability scanners for the AI/ML environment.
  • Threat Intelligence: Integrate external threat intelligence to understand how adversaries are using AI. Current intelligence shows a focus on enhancing traditional attacks like phishing and social engineering, making the reinforcement of fundamental cybersecurity controls a top priority.

6. Strategic Recommendations & Future Outlook

As organizations move toward more autonomous AI agents, the potential impact of vulnerabilities will be greatly amplified. To future-proof deployments, CISOs and Principal Architects should prioritize four strategic actions:

  1. Champion a Culture of Secure AI Literacy: Implement enterprise-wide training to educate all employees on the specific risks of LLMs, from recognizing AI-generated phishing to the dangers of inputting sensitive corporate data into public tools.
  2. Mandate “Security by Design” for all AI Projects: Integrate security and governance into every stage of the AI development lifecycle, from initial conception and data sourcing through to deployment and monitoring.
  3. Invest in an Adaptive, AI-Powered Defense Stack: Augment traditional security controls with AI-native solutions like LLM firewalls and AI-powered threat detection to counter attacks at machine speed.
  4. Develop a Dynamic Risk Management Program: Maintain an agile risk management program fueled by continuous red teaming, active monitoring of threat intelligence, and regular updates to policies, controls, and training.