The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) has transformed data processing and human-computer interaction across various sectors. With this leap forward come both significant productivity and automation improvements, as well as cybersecurity challenges. While LLMs can aid in enhancing security, they are also vulnerable to malicious use and specific cyberattacks. Dr. Ulrich Lang, CEO of ObjectSecurity, will delve into these topics at the “Malicious and Black-Market Language Models (LLMs)” panel on November 8, 2:05 PM, at the Fairmont Grand Del Mar, Del Mar, CA.

Understanding The Intersection of LLMs and Cybersecurity

Large Language Models (LLMs) are advanced AI systems trained on vast amounts of text from books, websites, forums, and other publicly available content. This broad training enables LLMs to understand context, generate coherent responses, and mimic human conversation convincingly. Popular LLMs, including OpenAI’s GPT-4 and Google’s Gemini, have become central to many applications–from chatbots and virtual assistants to research content creation, and even coding assistance. By analyzing patterns in their training data, these models generate responses that are not only relevant but also increasingly nuanced. Key characteristics of LLMs include:

• Scale: With billions of parameters, LLMs excel at recognizing and generating diverse language patterns. This scale enables them to cover a wide range of topics with an impressive level of detail.
• Contextual Awareness: Extensive training helps LLMs understand context better, allowing for responses that sound natural and informed.
• Adaptability: These models can be fine-tuned for specific use-cases, making them flexible tools for fields ranging from customer service to cybersecurity.

The use of LLMs in cybersecurity is multifaceted, with implications for both offense and defense. LLMs intersect with cybersecurity in three primary ways:

1. Understanding Malicious LLMs: Malicious LLMs are models deliberately trained or manipulated to produce harmful, misleading, or biased content, ranging from fake news to targeted phishing attempts. These models present a range of threats, including misinformation, harmful content generation, cyber-attacks (e.g., phishing), and data leakage which compromises user privacy.
2. Attacks Targeting LLMs: Cybercriminals have devised methods for exploiting LLMs through various attacks to manipulate and compromise models. Some common attack vectors include:
   • Adversarial Training and Manipulation: Training LLMs on “toxic” or misleading data can steer them to generate specific harmful outputs.
   • Prompt Injection: Through prompt injection, attackers craft inputs that make the LLM to behave unpredictably or leak sensitive information.
   • Data Poisoning: Inserting malicious data into a model’s training dataset alters its output to benefit attackers’ objectives, often leading to biased or misleading responses. These attacks can have significant impacts, compromising model integrity and exposing organizations to risks by producing unreliable or harmful outputs.
3. LLMs as Defensive Tools: On the defensive side, cybersecurity teams are utilizing LLMs to enhance protection measures. LLMs are now used for:
   • Threat Detection and Analysis: LLMs process vast amounts of text-based threat intelligence and alert data to identify patterns indicating a potential threat. By automating this process, LLMs help teams detect threats faster while improving accuracy.
   • Alert Processing and Triage: LLMs assist in sifting through alerts, prioritizing high-risk cases, and providing contextual information to help analysts focus on the most pressing issues.
   • Code Review and Vulnerability Assessment: Some models understand code, enabling them to assist developers by identifying and suggesting fixes for vulnerabilities. This boosts secure coding practices and reduces potential exploitable bugs in software.

These applications showcase how LLMs, while raising genuine concern for their potential misuse, also offer innovative solutions to strengthen cybersecurity defenses.

In the following sections, we will discuss each of these areas:

1. Malicious/Black Market LLMs

Malicious LLMs are language models deliberately altered or created to facilitate harmful actions, often bypassing the ethical filters found in mainstream AI tools. Unlike general-purpose LLMs, equipped with safeguards to mitigate harmful outputs, these black-market models are tailored for illicit activities, including spreading disinformation, crafting convincing phishing schemes, and automating complex social engineering attacks.

Examples of Malicious LLMs include:

• WormGPT: A model designed to produce phishing emails and malware code, lacking ethical safeguards. [1]
• FraudGPT: Tailored for financial fraud, specializing in creating schemes and deceptive communications. [1]
• DarkBERT: Trained on dark web data, enabling the creation of content linked to illicit activities.
• EvilGPT: Designed to bypass ethical safeguards, EvilGPT assists attackers in generating harmful content, including malware code and deceptive narratives, without the typical restrictions found in mainstream AI models.
• BadGPT: Similar to EvilGPT, BadGPT is tailored for malicious purposes, enabling the creation of phishing schemes, social engineering scripts, and other fraudulent content by providing unrestricted access to harmful outputs.
• MalwareGPT: Created to generate malicious code, MalwareGPT aids in the development of malware by generating code snippets and providing guidance on exploiting vulnerabilities, lowering barriers for creating sophisticated cyber threats.
• DeepPhish: Focused on automating phishing, DeepPhish demonstrates how AI models can generate highly personalized and convincing phishing emails by analyzing publicly available information about targets, increasing the success rate of such attacks.

Malicious LLMs have been actively deployed to scale and enhance cybercriminal efforts, making it easier for attackers to target more victims with greater success rates. Some notable examples of real-world exploits include:

• Phishing Campaigns: WormGPT and similar models are utilized to craft highly convincing phishing emails, often designed to mimic corporate communications or urgent alerts. These AI-generated phishing messages surpass traditional phishing attempts in sophistication, making them more effective in tricking victims. The automation of phishing content has led to a sharp increase in phishing success rates. [1]
• Financial Fraud and Social Engineering: FraudGPT supports cybercriminals by producing customized scripts and messages for financial fraud. With AI-generated content, scammers find it easier to trick individuals and organizations by posing as banks, service providers, or government agencies. This automation allows large-scale scams to be conducted with minimal effort.
• Content Creation for Dark Web Transactions: DarkBERT, trained on dark web data, generates content that facilitates illegal activities such as the sale of stolen data, weapons, or illicit substances. By providing realistic language and terminology familiar to dark web users, DarkBERT supports more convincing interactions in black-market communities.

Preventing malicious LLMs and their output is challenging due to their ability to generate human-like text, making it difficult to distinguish legitimate from harmful content. Additionally, the open-source nature of some LLMs allows adversaries to modify and deploy them with malicious intent. Identifying and mitigating malicious LLMs is complex due to several factors:

• Decentralized Distribution: Unlike mainstream LLMs developed and monitored by reputable organizations, these malicious LLMs are often distributed through underground networks, making them difficult to track and regulate.
• Human-Like Content Generation: Malicious LLMs produce text that can be nearly indistinguishable from legitimate communication, complicating filtering and flagging harmful outputs.
• Customizability for Illicit Purposes: With access to model architecture and parameters, malicious LLMs can be fine-tuned for specific criminal activities, making them highly adaptable and targeted in their application.

2. Attacks Targeting LLMs

Attacks on Large Language Models (LLMs) are strategies that adversaries use to manipulate these models, making them act in unexpected ways, leak sensitive information, or perform undesirable tasks. These attacks can target inputs or the data used in training, allowing attackers to bypass model safeguards and extract sensitive information or alter functionality. Examples of attacks include:

• Prompt Injection: These involve crafting specific inputs that cause an LLM to generate unintended responses or reveal sensitive information. This attack exploits the model’s tendency to follow instructions without adequate checks, making it possible for attackers to embed commands or instructions within inputs to bypass restrictions. For instance, a well-designed prompt injection might trick an LLM into disclosing private data or performing unauthorized actions, such as generating harmful content or altering responses in ways that compromise user privacy. [2]
• Data Poisoning: In data poisoning attacks, adversaries insert malicious or biased data into the model’s training dataset, influencing its behavior or outputs. This manipulation can be subtle, teaching certain biases or misinformation, or more direct, causing it to generate outputs that benefit the attacker. Data poisoning can compromise the integrity of an LLM, as it might then produce misleading or harmful responses, especially if the poisoned data involves security-sensitive or politically charged content. [3]
• Model Inversion: Model inversion attacks attempt to reconstruct sensitive information that the model may have learned during training. By repeatedly querying the model in specific ways, attackers can extract underlying data patterns or even recreate specific data points (e.g., parts of a private dataset used for training). This is particularly concerning when the model has been trained on sensitive data like customer information or medical records.
• Adversarial Inputs: Adversarial attacks involve modifying inputs in subtle ways to cause the models to produce incorrect outputs. While commonly associated with image recognition, this technique is increasingly being adapted for LLMs. An adversarial input might involve slight word variations that lead the model to produce misleading or nonsensical responses, which can be exploited in specific contexts to disrupt the LLM’s intended functionality.

3. LLMs as Defensive Tools

While there are risks associated with LLMs, they bring substantial benefits to cybersecurity by enhancing threat response and mitigation, such as:

• Phishing Detection: Phishing attacks rely on deceiving users into revealing sensitive information. LLMs can analyze email content to identify signs of potential phishing, such as urgency, impersonation, or unusual links. This allows cybersecurity teams to automate the flagging of potential phishing emails before they reach end users, reducing the risk of successful attacks. Advanced LLMs can also assess attachments, look for mismatched sender information, and compare message content against known phishing databases, enhancing defenses.
• Alert Processing and Triage: In modern security operations centers (SOCs), analysts face an overwhelming number of security alerts. LLMs can be trained to process and analyze these alerts in real time, categorizing them by threat level and prioritizing them for human review. By automatically triaging alerts, LLMs help analysts focus on the most critical threats first, saving valuable time and improving response accuracy. LLMs can also consolidate information from various sources, summarize incident details, and even provide recommended actions streamlining the response process and reduce fatigue among security personnel.
• Code Analysis and Vulnerability Detection: LLMs can assist developers and security teams by analyzing source code for vulnerabilities. Trained with secure coding practices and vulnerability patterns, LLMs can detect common issues such as SQL injection risks, buffer overflows, or insecure data handling. They can also suggest remediation methods, minimizing the need for manual code review. Additionally, LLMs can automate compliance checks, ensuring code adheres to security standards before deployment. This capability is particularly valuable for DevSecOps teams looking to integrate security throughout the development lifecycle.
• Threat Intelligence Analysis: LLMs can analyze vast amounts of threat intelligence data from multiple sources, to identify trends, new attack vectors, and evolving tactics. By automating threat analysis from feeds, forums, and other intelligence sources, LLMs can offer increased knowledge of emerging threats. This proactive approach helps organizations adapt their defenses preemptively.
• User Behavior Analysis: By monitoring user behavior, LLMs can detect anomalies suggesting insider threats or compromised accounts. When user activity deviations from normal patterns—such as unexpected login locations, data access patterns, or file downloads—it can flag these behaviors for immediate investigation. This capability is essential in preventing data breaches and spotting threats that bypass traditional perimeter defenses.
• Incident Response Assistance: LLMs can act as virtual assistants during incident response by automating routine investigation tasks. For example, they can aggregate relevant information from logs, generate incident summaries, and recommend initial response actions. This functionality enables SOCs to handle incidents efficiently and frees up human analysts for more complex tasks. LLMs can also assist in drafting incident reports, ensuring documentation is comprehensive and accurate.

By integrating LLMs across these cybersecurity tasks, organizations can enhance their ability to detect, prioritize, and respond to threats with greater accuracy and speed. LLMs’ natural language capabilities also mean they can understand context in alerts and code, allowing them to analyze and respond more effectively than traditional rule-based systems. As AI models continue to advance, their role in supporting cybersecurity teams will likely expand, providing powerful tools for defending against an increasingly complex and adaptive threat landscape.

Proactive Strategies for Countering Threats

Mitigating these attacks presents a significant challenge for AI developers and security practitioners. Some of the main challenges include:

• Difficulty in Detecting Manipulated Inputs: Detecting prompt injections or adversarial inputs can be difficult, especially since these manipulations are subtle and often look similar to regular user inputs. Without advanced monitoring, such attacks can go unnoticed.
• Identifying Poisoned Data: Data poisoning is hard to detect, particularly in large-scale datasets where malicious data can be hidden among thousands or millions of data points. Once poisoned data impacts model behavior, it can be hard to correct without a costly retraining process.
• Safeguarding Model Privacy: Preventing model inversion requires designing models with privacy-preserving mechanisms, such as differential privacy, which can be complex and computationally expensive to implement.

Addressing these vulnerabilities requires a layered defense strategy that includes regular audits, prompt monitoring, input validation, and robust training data curation. As LLMs become increasingly integral to business operations, understanding and mitigating these attack vectors is essential for maintaining secure and trustworthy AI deployments.

To effectively counter the risks associated with both malicious LLMs and attacks on LLMs, organizations and researchers can implement the following measures:

• Procurement Guidelines for LLMs: To mitigate risks, organizations should adopt robust procurement guidelines. This includes vetting AI providers to ensure ethical and secure development practices, clarifying data retention and usage policies, and including clauses for regular security and compliance audits. These ensure LLMs procured for organizational use meet security standards and are aligned with ethical guidelines.
• Implement Access Controls: Restrict access to LLMs and limit permissions based on roles to prevent unauthorized use. Ensuring access is limited to authorized users who interact with LLMs, especially for sensitive tasks, adds a layer of security against internal misuse.
• Prompt Rewriting: Use prompt engineering techniques to modify inputs to reduce the chance of triggering harmful or biased responses from the model. This approach involves carefully structuring questions and commands to minimize unintended outputs or the exposure of confidential information.
• Output Filtering: Integrate filtering mechanisms that review and sanitize model outputs, particularly when outputs are used in customer-facing applications, e.g., by flagging specific words or phrases that indicate risky content, organizations can automatically filter out sensitive or inappropriate information before it reaches end-users.
• User Awareness and Training: Train users to recognize potential AI-generated phishing or manipulation attempts. By teaching employees how to identify phishing messages, organizations can reduce the risk of successful attacks. Awareness programs foster a security-conscious culture, enabling users to identify suspicious content and understand the role of LLMs in both defending against and posing threats.
• Ethical Guidelines and Usage Policies: Develop and enforce ethical guidelines defining acceptable uses of LLMs within the organization. These policies should outline how models are trained, what types of data are permissible for model training, and under what conditions LLM outputs should be reviewed by human operators.
• Human Oversight: Implement human-in-the-loop systems for verifying critical outputs where appropriate.
• Regular Audits and Monitoring: Conduct regular checks to assess LLM behavior and ensure that models are not outputting unexpected or harmful content. Monitoring model usage and logging interactions helps organizations track anomalies and respond promptly to suspicious activities, especially if a model shows signs of manipulation.
• Unique Data Processing Agreement (DPA) Elements: When procuring LLMs, specific DPA elements should be considered:
  • Data Privacy Clauses: Protect sensitive data handled by LLMs.
  • Bias Audits: Require periodic checks for biases and their evolution.
  • Retraining Commitments: Commit to updating models to address emerging threats and mitigate biases.
  • Security Audits: Routine security assessments to identify and resolve vulnerabilities.
• Continuous Model Evaluation and Retraining: Regularly retrain models on clean, updated data to prevent biases or harmful patterns from persisting. Frequent updates improve their resilience against adversarial attacks and mitigate risks associated with data poisoning.
• Behavioral and Contextual Detection Tools: Employ AI-based tools that detect anomalies in content generated by LLMs, such as sudden shifts in tone, unexpected commands, or sensitive data leakage. These tools identify potential prompt injections or abnormal model responses indicating an attack.

These proactive strategies enhance an organization’s ability to detect, mitigate, and prevent the misuse of LLMs, whether by internal actors or external threats. Equipping both security teams and general users with the knowledge needed to address LLM-related threats will strengthen the organization’s overall security posture.

Leveraging LLMs to Improve Security Posture

Organizations can also use LLMs to strengthen their security. By applying LLMs in areas like threat intelligence analysis, security automation, and anomaly detection, security teams can enhance their responsiveness and resilience. While full details can be reserved for later blog posts, organizations can leverage LLMs to boost security posture:

• Automating Threat Intelligence: LLMs can swiftly analyze and filter large volumes of threat data, identifying patterns and indicators of emerging threats often overlooked, enhancing early warning capabilities.
• Enhancing Incident Response: By providing real-time context and correlating information during security incidents, LLMs support faster, more informed decision-making, allowing security teams to respond with precision and speed.
• Improving User Training: LLMs generate realistic phishing and social engineering scenarios for training programs, helping users recognize and effectively respond to threats, cultivating a security-aware culture.

Regulatory, Ethical and Societal Implications

Addressing the misuse of LLMs requires a multifaceted approach, including establishing ethical guidelines, implementing robust monitoring systems, and considering regulatory measures to prevent the proliferation of malicious AI tools. Although challenging to implement globally, these strategies are vital for limiting black-market LLMs and their misuse. The adoption of LLMs brings ethical challenges and societal considerations:

• Bias and Fairness: Malicious or poorly trained LLMs may perpetuate biases present in their training data, producing outputs that may reinforce harmful stereotypes or skewed perspectives. In cybersecurity, biased LLM responses could lead to inequitable security practices or missed vulnerabilities. Adversarial attacks, such as data poisoning, can further introduce biases, manipulating the model’s behavior for nefarious purposes. Ensuring fairness and minimizing bias in LLMs requires careful data curation, regular bias audits, bias checks, transparent methods, continuous data, and ongoing retraining to maintain a balanced, objective response framework.
• Privacy Concerns: The risk of data leakage exists if models inadvertently reveal sensitive or private information from their training data. Privacy-focused policies, such as differential privacy techniques, help minimize these risks.
• Regulatory Needs: The growing influence of LLMs necessitates regulatory measures, such as model licensing, compliance standards, and routine auditing, to prevent misuse and promote transparency. Industry collaboration supports the mitigation these threats while establishing standards for ethical AI deployment.

Potential other considerations include:

• AI Model Licensing and Compliance: Implementing requirements for developers to adhere to ethical and security standards when creating and distributing LLMs.
• Enhanced Monitoring and Tracking: Developing technologies and protocols to track and identify malicious LLMs distributed through unregulated channels.
• Data Usage Transparency: Ensuring transparency in AI data usage, particularly when sensitive data could be misused.

Join Us at Let’s Talk Security

Dr. Ulrich Lang, CEO of ObjectSecurity, will explore these topics in depth at the “Malicious and Black Market Language Models (LLMs)” panel on November 8, 2:05 PM, at the Fairmont Grand Del Mar, Del Mar, CA. This event is part of the Let’s Talk Security conference, bringing together experts to discuss the latest in cybersecurity. https://letstalksecurity.com/schedule/

Contact Us To Learn More

ObjectSecurity’s “trusted AI” team focuses on AI/ML trust analysis, offering products and services developed through initiatives like the USAF-funded SBIR contract. Our solutions focus on enhancing transparency and trust in AI systems, ensuring they operate securely and ethically. Explore how ObjectSecurity can help your organization address AI and cybersecurity challenges: