OWASP LLM Top 10: SystemPromptLeakage Feedback


# Feedback for “SystemPromptLeakage_Feedback.md”

## Strengths:
1. **Clarity of Concept**: The vulnerability description is clear and explains the core idea well. It introduces the concept of system prompt leakage concisely and effectively.
2. **Tone and Professionalism**: The tone of the entry is appropriately formal and informative, which aligns well with the professional nature of the OWASP project.
3. **Logical Introduction**: The description provides a strong foundation by defining what system prompts are and how they are designed to guide model behavior, making the issue accessible to both technical and non-technical readers.

## Weaknesses & Areas for Improvement:
1. **Sentence Structure and Flow**: Some sentences are a bit long and convoluted, making the entry harder to follow. For example, “By carefully crafting the prompt, an attacker can make the model behaving in a way contrary to those instructions” could be clearer.
2. **Lack of Examples**: The “Common Examples” section should include more detailed examples. The first example introduces a “Direct Attack” but doesn’t fully explain how the attack would work in practice.
3. **Redundancy**: There is some redundancy in the explanation of the attack method. For example, “manipulating the model’s input in such a way that the system prompt is overridden” and “make the model behaving in a way contrary to those instructions” essentially say the same thing.
4. **Grammar Issues**: Some grammatical issues detract from the professionalism of the entry. For example, “make the model behaving” should be “make the model behave.”

## Suggestions for Improvement:
1. **Improve Sentence Clarity**: Break up long sentences to make them easier to digest. For example:
   - Original: “If an attacker discovers these prompts, they might be able to manipulate the model's behavior in unintended ways.”
   - Suggested: “If an attacker discovers these prompts, they can manipulate the model's behavior in unintended ways. This manipulation may lead to outcomes that contradict the system's intended safety and ethical guidelines.”

2. **Revise the Attack Description**:
   - Original: “By carefully crafting the prompt, an attacker can make the model behaving in a way contrary to those instructions.”
   - Suggested: “By crafting specific inputs, an attacker can force the model to behave contrary to its intended instructions.”

3. **Expand the Example Section**: 
   - Expand the “Direct Attack” scenario. Provide additional concrete details about how the attacker would construct the input and what the results would look like. Use bullet points to clearly separate different steps or actions in the scenario.

4. **Organize for Consistency**: 
   - The entry should follow the consistent structure you’ve outlined, with clearly demarcated sections such as **Prevention and Mitigation Strategies** and **Example Attack Scenarios**. Right now, it’s missing the latter parts. Adding those sections with practical details would make the entry more comprehensive and useful.

5. **Grammar and Style Edits**:
   - Change “make the model behaving” to “make the model behave.”
   - In the sentence “Now using this vulnerability the attacker can bypass system instructions,” remove "Now" to avoid a conversational tone. A more formal version could be: “Using this vulnerability, attackers can bypass system instructions.”
   
6. **Expand the Scenarios**: In the “Example Attack Scenarios” section, introduce detailed steps:
   - Numbered and sequential examples (e.g., "Step 1: The attacker inputs...").
   - Describe specific consequences of successful exploitation.

## Conclusion:
This entry has a solid foundation with a clear understanding of the vulnerability. Improving the structure by expanding the examples and ensuring the scenarios are well-defined would make it even stronger. With the addition of mitigation strategies and more specific examples, it will align well with the OWASP Top 10 guidelines. I look forward to seeing how you incorporate these suggestions into the next version!