Verifying Intent and Harm: A Unified Defense Against LLM-Generated Threats
arXiv SecurityArchived Jun 26, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2606.26377v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in interactive applications, yet they remain vulnerable to adversarial interactions that induce harmful, deceptive, or policy-violating outputs. Existing defenses typically analyze either user prompts or generated outputs, but not both. However, many real-world attacks exploit a separation between adversarial intent expressed in the prompt and actionable harm manifested only in the response. As
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
[Submitted on 24 Jun 2026]
Verifying Intent and Harm: A Unified Defense Against LLM-Generated Threats
Poojitha Thota, Yun Lei, Santhosh Thangaraj, Siddhartha Reddy Jonnalagadda, Shirin Nilizadeh
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in interactive applications, yet they remain vulnerable to adversarial interactions that induce harmful, deceptive, or policy-violating outputs. Existing defenses typically analyze either user prompts or generated outputs, but not both. However, many real-world attacks exploit a separation between adversarial intent expressed in the prompt and actionable harm manifested only in the response. As a result, prompt-only and response-only defenses frequently miss unsafe interactions that appear benign when viewed from either side in isolation. We present a verification-centric defense framework that jointly evaluates prompt intent and response harm before an LLM response is delivered to a user. The framework employs specialized analysts for intent and harm assessment together with a Judge for conflict resolution. We formalize a threat model for prompt-response attacks and evaluate the framework across five threat categories: jailbreaks, prompt injection, phishing, cyber abuse, and harmful content. Experiments on multiple benchmark datasets show that jointly verifying prompt intent and response harm consistently outperforms single-sided defenses and single-agent reasoning baselines. Across threat categories, the framework improves average F1 from 0.90 for the strongest applicable baselines to 0.95 while reducing the average attack success rate to 4.1 percent. Compared with a Single-Agent+CoT baseline, it improves average F1 from 0.87 to 0.95 and reduces the false positive rate on benign-sensitive requests from 0.12 to 0.06. We further evaluate architecture-aware adaptive attacks in which the attacker knows the verifier structure and attempts to bypass individual verification components. Our results suggest that prompt-response verification provides a practical foundation for securing LLM applications against evolving adversarial threats.
Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR)
Cite as: arXiv:2606.26377 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2606.26377v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.26377
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Poojitha Thota [view email]
[v1] Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:00:39 UTC (673 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CR
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-06
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)