Where Do LLM-based Systems Break? A System-Level Security Framework for Risk Assessment and Treatment

While incorporating LLMs into systems offers significant benefits in critical application areas such as healthcare, new security challenges emerge due to the potential cyber kill chain cycles that combine adversarial model, prompt injection and conventional cyber attacks. Threat modeling methods enable the system designers to identify potential cyber threats and the relevant mitigations during the early stages of development. Although the cyber security community has extensive experience in applying these methods to software-based systems, the elicited threats are usually abstract and vague, limiting their effectiveness for conducting proper likelihood and impact assessments for risk prioritization, especially in complex systems with novel attacks surfaces, such as those involving LLMs. In this study, we propose a structured, goal driven risk assessment approach that contextualizes the threats with detailed attack vectors, preconditions, and attack paths through the use of attack trees. We demonstrate the proposed approach on a case study with an LLM agent-based healthcare system. This study harmonizes the state-of-the-art attacks to LLMs with conventional ones and presents possible attack paths applicable to similar systems. By providing a structured risk assessment, this study makes a significant contribution to the literature and advances the secure-by-design practices in LLM-based systems.

Large Language Models increasingly power critical infrastructure from healthcare to finance, yet their vulnerability to adversarial manipulation threatens system integrity and user safety. Despite growing deployment, no comprehensive comparative security assessment exists across major LLM architectures, leaving organizations unable to quantify risk or select appropriately secure LLMs for sensitive applications. This research addresses this gap by establishing a standardized vulnerability assessment framework and developing a multi-layered defensive system to protect against identified threats. We systematically evaluate five widely-deployed LLM families GPT-4, GPT-3.5 Turbo, Claude-3 Haiku, LLaMA-2-70B, and Gemini-2.5-pro against 10,000 adversarial prompts spanning six attack categories. Our assessment reveals critical security disparities, with vulnerability rates ranging from 11.9% to 29.8%, demonstrating that LLM capability does not correlate with security robustness. To mitigate these risks, we develop a production-ready defensive framework achieving 83% average detection accuracy with only 5% false positives. These results demonstrate that systematic security assessment combined with external defensive measures provides a viable path toward safer LLM deployment in production environments.

Large language model (LLM) agents are rapidly moving from conversational interfaces to software components that plan, invoke tools, maintain memory, and act on external environments. This transition changes the nature of security risk. In agentic settings, failures are no longer limited to unsafe text generation. Untrusted content may redirect control flow, misuse tool privileges, corrupt persistent state, leak sensitive information, or trigger harmful external actions. At the same time, research on LLM agent security is expanding quickly but remains fragmented across attack families, defense layers, application domains, and evaluation settings. This paper synthesizes 247 papers through a lifecycle-based, systems-oriented framework that models agent security around the interaction of information flow, delegated authority, and persistent state. We organize the literature around four questions: how LLM agent security should be modeled, which threat surfaces and attack families dominate, what defenses have been proposed and with what tradeoffs, and how security claims are evaluated. We find that prompt injection and tool-mediated control-flow hijacking still dominate the field, while persistent state corruption and multi-agent propagation are becoming central emerging concerns. We further find that current defenses provide useful building blocks but remain weakly compositional, and that existing benchmarks still underrepresent long-horizon, stateful, and deployment-sensitive risks. We argue that secure LLM agents require explicit trust boundaries, principled privilege control, provenance-aware state management, and evaluation practices aligned with realistic operational settings.