Large language models increasingly operate as persistent assistants in user-facing, shared-session, and tool-augmented settings. When users disclose sensitive information during an active conversation, that information may remain behaviorally recoverable through later prompts even after the dialogue shifts to unrelated topics. We introduce \textbf{PrivDrift}, a benchmark for auditing whether user-disclosed secrets remain recoverable after conversational topic drift and persuasion-based probing. PrivDrift contains 1{,}000 controlled multi-turn dialogues with seeded secrets, content-dense drift turns, and standardized extraction probes. Across three LLMs with extended context windows, dialogue-level hybrid leakage remains substantial, ranging from 38.7% to 54.6%, and varies strongly by model, secret type, and persuasion intensity. Within the tested drift window, additional topic drift does not reliably reduce leakage, suggesting that privacy risk in active LLM contexts should be evaluated as a persistent behavioral failure mode rather than only as training-data memorization or immediate jailbreak behavior.
Figures & tables
Figure 1 : PrivDrift overview. The pipeline constructs controlled multi-turn dialogues, appends standardized probes, queries target models, and scores leakage with a hybrid detector.
Figure 2 : Hierarchical hybrid evaluation. Normalization-based matching is applied first; regex-negative responses are then passed to an LLM judge.
Figure 3 : Privacy Half-Life τ requires stable decay below the threshold. A later resurgence disqualifies a transient decrease.
Figure 4 : Hybrid leakage versus drift length. Curves show a dip near d=3 followed by rebound.
Figure 5 : Hybrid leakage heatmap by drift length and persuasion intensity for each model.
LLM-based agents are rapidly advancing, autonomously invoking external tools to complete multi-step tasks for users. However, agents often acquire more sensitive information than the task requires. Existing privacy benchmarks audit what the agent's response or outgoing actions disclose, but overlook the acquisition stage where data first enters the agent's context. The over-acquired information is then one careless action or one attack away from an outright leak. To assess its prevalence, we introduce \emph{PrivacyPeek}, a benchmark for evaluating acquisition-stage privacy leakage of LLM-based agents, with 1,182 cases across 7 acquisition behaviours and 16 application domains. Specifically, \emph{Acquisition Inspection} examines the agent's tool-call trajectory, both the tools it invokes and the data it receives, to detect when it acquires sensitive information beyond the task scope. \emph{Probe Elicitation} then issues a follow-up probe and measures how readily an attacker could elicit sensitive information the agent acquired but did not disclose. Our experiments on 10 LLM-based agents across 4 model families show that the unnecessary acquisition of sensitive information is widespread. In addition, we observe a correlation between the task-completion capability and acquisition-stage leakage. Prompt-level defences reduce only a small fraction of acquisition-stage leakage, leaving the majority unmitigated. These results make auditing acquisition-stage privacy both urgent and necessary. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/Xuan269/PrivacyPeek-Resource.
Mingxuan Zhang, Jiahui Han, Dadi Guo +5
Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory · Southeast University
Large language model (LLM) assistants increasingly help users draft content for third-party recipients. During private drafting, the user or the model may introduce an item and later remove or replace it. The model may remove the item from the intended content but reveal it again when stating the edit. We call such statements revision traces. For example, after a user removes the password before sharing a configuration file, the model may delete it but leave a comment saying, "Removed the password 'No****4!' as requested." A third-party recipient who sees only the delivered file can therefore recover the withdrawn password from the comment. In an in-the-wild analysis of three public conversation corpora, we identify 26,753 revision requests, of which 2,363 (8.8%) leave revision traces. We study them in greater depth under controlled conditions by introducing RevLeakBench, a benchmark of 100 tasks across five scenarios with a conversation track and an agent track. We measure trace occurrence, withdrawn-item recovery, trace position, and required-content retention. Across six models, about half of the deliverables in both tracks state the edit after a revocation, and a reader that sees only the deliverable can recover the withdrawn item from about 13% of them. Telling the model that its entire reply will be forwarded to the recipient still leaves revision traces in 36.4% of the deliverables. We compare prompt defenses and a delivery boundary, and propose an output-side filter that sharply reduces recovery with little loss of required content. We believe our work can benefit efforts to understand and mitigate unintended disclosure in LLM interactions.
LLM safety evaluations predominantly test models in isolation, yet deployed AI agents increasingly operate within persistent social environments alongside other agents. We introduce a Moltbook-style simulation platform where thousands of LLM agents interact across communities over a simulated month, and use it to evaluate privacy as a downstream safety concern under varying degrees of social pressure. We find that shifting from single turn to multi turn social evaluation amplifies privacy violations (CIMemories 19.95% to Ours 45.30% across OpenAI models), that leakage is socially contagious, with agents 8 times more likely to disclose sensitive information after observing a peer do so, and that explicit privacy instructions reduce but do not eliminate this effect, leaving leakage rates above 37.8% even with safeguards. Our findings suggest that static chat based safety benchmarks systematically underestimate risks in agentic deployment, and that social context alone is sufficient to elicit sensitive disclosures that single turn evaluations would never surface.