Security Assessment and Mitigation Strategies for Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Defensive Framework
Organizations: School of Computing, University of North Florida
Abstract
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.
Figures & tables
| Strategy | Protection Mechanism | Key Advantages |
|---|---|---|
| Input Sanitization [ 15 ] | Prevents malicious patterns from reaching LLM | Minimal latency overhead |
| Semantic Analysis [ 14 ] | Detects intent-based manipulation | Robust against obfuscation |
| Output Validation [ 16 ] | Ensures safe responses | Last-line defense |
| Ensemble Defense [ 10 ] | Multiple validation layers | Comprehensive protection |
| LLM | Provider | Key Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| GPT-4 | OpenAI | Advanced reasoning, strong safety training |
| GPT-3.5 Turbo | OpenAI | Cost-optimized, moderate safety measures |
| Claude-3 Haiku | Anthropic | Constitutional AI, safety-focused |
| LLaMA-2-70B | Meta | Open-source, research-oriented |
| Gemini-2.5-pro | Multimodal, enterprise-focused |
| Feature | Definition |
|---|---|
| Role Impersonation: Measures similarity to malicious personas | |
| Hypothetical Language: Quantifies scenario fabrication indicators | |
| Obfuscation: Counts syntactic evasion attempts | |
| Privilege Escalation: Detects system-level exploitation | |
| Multi-Agent: Identifies collaborative attack structures | |
| Semantic Bypass: Measures justification and framing attempts |
| Category | R | H | O | PE | MA | SB | U | EV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Role Impersonation | 0.70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.30 |
| Logic Subversion | 0 | 0.50 | 0 | 0 | 0.20 | 0.30 | 0 | 0 |
| Obfuscation | 0 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Privilege Escalation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Social Engineering | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 |
| Attack Category | Threshold ( ) |
|---|---|
| Role Impersonation | 0.65 |
| Logic Subversion | 0.45 |
| Obfuscation | 0.30 |
| Privilege Escalation | 0.25 |
| Social Engineering | 0.20 |
| LLM | Vulnerability Rate | Refusal Rate | Avg Response Length | True Positives |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gemini-2.5-pro | 29.8% | 44.5% | 2,592 | 596 |
| GPT-3.5 Turbo | 24.8% | 43.0% | 562 | 495 |
| GPT-4 | 23.4% | 55.6% | 656 | 468 |
| Claude-3 Haiku | 21.5% | 60.2% | 844 | 430 |
| LLaMA-2-70B | 11.9% | 56.2% | 894 | 237 |
| Technique | GPT-4 | GPT-3.5 | Claude | LLaMA | Gemini |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Privilege Escalation | 25.0% | 100.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 75.0% |
| Logic Subversion | 50.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% |
| Obfuscation | 20.9% | 22.9% | 19.0% | 11.1% | 29.1% |
| Role Impersonation | 6.9% | 20.7% | 6.9% | 6.9% | 37.9% |
| Social Engineering | 33.3% | 16.7% | 33.3% | 16.7% | 33.3% |
| Attack Category | Detection Rate | False Positive Rate | Protection Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role Impersonation | 94% | 3% | 0.91 |
| Privilege Escalation | 91% | 4% | 0.88 |
| Obfuscation | 85% | 7% | 0.81 |
| Logic Subversion | 82% | 5% | 0.80 |
| Data Exfiltration | 79% | 5% | 0.76 |
| Social Engineering | 68% | 6% | 0.70 |
| Processing Component | Average Latency (ms) | Percentage of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Input Sanitization | 2.3 | 15% |
| Pattern Recognition | 3.1 | 20% |
| Feature Extraction | 5.8 | 38% |
| Semantic Analysis | 3.7 | 24% |
| Classification Decision | 0.5 | 3% |
| Total Processing Time | 15.4 | 100% |
| Legitimate Use Case | Sample Size | False Positive Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Technical Documentation | 100 | 3% |
| Educational Content | 90 | 4% |
| Creative Writing | 80 | 7% |
| Role-Playing Games | 50 | 12% |
| Hypothetical Discussions | 40 | 9% |
| Code Generation | 40 | 2% |
| Defense Method | Detection Rate | False Positive Rate | Processing Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial Moderation APIs | 67-71% | 11-15% | 180-220ms |
| PromptShield [ 11 ] | 78% | 8% | 20ms |
| Open-Source Detoxify | 64% | 9% | 45ms |
| SecurityLingua [ 25 ] | 80% | 7% | 12ms |
| Our Framework | 83% | 5% | 15ms |