HackerPapers

arXiv:2410.13722cs.CR

Persistent Pre-Training Poisoning of LLMs

Yiming Zhang, Javier Rando, Ivan Evtimov, Jianfeng Chi, Eric Michael Smith, Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Daphne Ippolito

Abstract

Large language models are pre-trained on uncurated text datasets consisting of trillions of tokens scraped from the Web. Prior work has shown that: (1) web-scraped pre-training datasets can be practically poisoned by malicious actors; and (2) adversaries can compromise language models after poisoning fine-tuning datasets. Our work evaluates for the first time whether language models can also be compromised during pre-training, with a focus on the persistence of pre-training attacks after models are fine-tuned as helpful and harmless chatbots (i.e., after SFT and DPO). We pre-train a series of LLMs from scratch to measure the impact of a potential poisoning adversary under four different attack objectives (denial-of-service, belief manipulation, jailbreaking, and prompt stealing), and across a wide range of model sizes (from 600M to 7B). Our main result is that poisoning only 0.1% of a model's pre-training dataset is sufficient for three out of four attacks to measurably persist through post-training. Moreover, simple attacks like denial-of-service persist through post-training with a poisoning rate of only 0.001%.

arXiv comments
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CRCryptography and Security cs.AIArtificial Intelligence

On Hacker News

Linked by 4 identifiable commenters in 4 comments across 4 threads, from Dec 2024 to Nov 2026. Found in 1 HN submission from Oct 2024 to Oct 2024. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments4 threads

    • This is the continuation of a problem that's been known-about for a few years. [0][1] I suppose the news is that yes, the issue remains in modern models. LLMs driving decisions are going to be like asbestos: People will ignore the risk for a while to make a short-ter profit…

      Terr_View on HNParent context

    • There is quite old research on this: - https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14455 - https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.05566 - https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.13722

      TiberiumView on HNParent context

    • I read this paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.13722) on pre-training poisoning of LLMs. The authors demonstrated that poisoning 0.1% of the pretraining dataset can measurably manipulate beliefs of the model. What I read about is a more sophisticated supply chain attack. But…

      hazrmardView on HNParent context

  1. llms.txt directory 1 comment
    • This study shows that controlling 0.1% may be enough. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.13722v1 I have noticed some popular copied but incorrect leetcode examples leaking into the dataset. I suspect it depends on domain specificity, but that seems within the ability of an SEO spammer…

      nyrikkiView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.