Privacy and Security Issues in Generative AI: GenAI Shield, a Prompt-Level Privacy and Security Analyzer

Authors

  • Adrat Tejal Sakharam Department of MCA, Zeal Institute of Business Administration, Computer Application and Research (ZIBACAR), Narhe, Pune, India
  • Barbuddhe Vedanti Sudhakarrao Department of MCA, Zeal Institute of Business Administration, Computer Application and Research (ZIBACAR), Narhe, Pune, India
  • Awale Sakshi Ravindra Department of MCA, Zeal Institute of Business Administration, Computer Application and Research (ZIBACAR), Narhe, Pune, India
  • Dr. Madhavi Shamkuwar Department of MCA, Zeal Institute of Business Administration, Computer Application and Research (ZIBACAR), Narhe, Pune, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63671/ijsesr.v2i4.182

Keywords:

Generative AI, Privacy, Security, Prompt Injection, PII Detection, Risk Scoring

Abstract

Users of Generative AI (GenAI) systems routinely paste personal data, passwords, API keys and internal documents into prompts, while the systems themselves face attacks such as prompt injection, and users have few tools that check a prompt before it is submitted. This paper presents the design and evaluation framework of GenAI Shield, a prompt-level privacy and security analyzer that combines pattern-based detection of personal data and credentials, rule-based detection of confidential markers, prompt-injection and suspicious content, a transparent project-specific risk score (0–100, four levels), and a rule-driven recommendation engine. The system (Python/Flask, SQLite, Chart.js) is under development; no module has yet been implemented, deployed or tested, and this paper reports the proposed design only. A synthetic Stage 1 dataset of 200 prompts in six categories was used to demonstrate the evaluation method (synthetic data was used for Stage 1 because the prototype is incomplete, and will be replaced by measured results in Stage 2); the detector outcomes in it are assumed and illustrative. Under that illustration, precision is 0.95, recall 0.79 and F1 0.86 against synthetic labels, with structured categories (personal data, credentials) flagged at 94.55% and semantic categories (confidential, injection, suspicious content) at 68.24%. The contribution is an architectural and methodological integration of privacy detection, threat detection, scoring and advice for GenAI prompts, reported with an explicit account of what is proposed versus what is measured.

References

Carlini, N., Tramèr, F., Wallace, E., Jagielski, M., Herbert-Voss, A., Lee, K., Roberts, A., Brown, T., Song, D., Erlingsson, Ú., Oprea, A., & Raffel, C. (2021). Extracting training data from large language models. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (pp. 2633–2650). USENIX Association.

Greshake, K., Abdelnabi, S., Mishra, S., Endres, C., Holz, T., & Fritz, M. (2023). Not what you've signed up for: Compromising real-world LLM-integrated applications with indirect prompt injection. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security (pp. 79–90). ACM.

Inan, H., Upasani, K., Chi, J., Rungta, R., Iyer, K., Mao, Y., Tontchev, M., Hu, Q., Fuller, B., Testuggine, D., & Khabsa, M. (2023). Llama Guard: LLM-based input-output safeguard for human-AI conversations (arXiv:2312.06674). arXiv.

Lison, P., Pilán, I., Sánchez, D., Batet, M., & Øvrelid, L. (2021). Anonymisation models for text data: State of the art, challenges and future directions. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 4188–4203). Association for Computational Linguistics.

Lukas, N., Salem, A., Sim, R., Tople, S., Wutschitz, L., & Zanella-Béguelin, S. (2023). Analyzing leakage of personally identifiable information in language models. In 2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE.

Meli, M., McNiece, M. R., & Reaves, B. (2019). How bad can it git? Characterizing secret leakage in public GitHub repositories. In Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS). Internet Society.

Mireshghallah, N., Kim, H., Zhou, X., Tsvetkov, Y., Sap, M., Shokri, R., & Choi, Y. (2024). Can LLMs keep a secret? Testing privacy implications of language models via contextual integrity theory. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2024).

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile (NIST AI 600-1). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1

OWASP Foundation. (2025). OWASP Top 10 for LLM applications 2025. https://genai.owasp.org/llm-top-10/

Wei, A., Haghtalab, N., & Steinhardt, J. (2023). Jailbroken: How does LLM safety training fail? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.

Yao, Y., Duan, J., Xu, K., Cai, Y., Sun, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2024). A survey on large language model (LLM) security and privacy: The good, the bad, and the ugly. High-Confidence Computing, 4(2), 100211.

Downloads

Published

2026-10-26