PIGuard: Prompt Injection Guardrail via Mitigating Overdefense for Free
mettamage
11 points
5 comments
April 03, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 49.4ms across 3,471 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- The Webpage Has Instructions. The Agent Has Your Credentials everlier · 33 pts · March 15, 2026 · 47% similar
- Prompt-caching – auto-injects Anthropic cache breakpoints (90% token savings) ermis · 68 pts · March 13, 2026 · 44% similar
- Document poisoning in RAG systems: How attackers corrupt AI's sources aminerj · 98 pts · March 12, 2026 · 43% similar
- WireGuard Is Two Things mlhpdx · 17 pts · March 12, 2026 · 43% similar
- Prompt Injecting Contributing.md statements · 112 pts · March 19, 2026 · 42% similar
Discussion Highlights (4 comments)
mettamage
I was playing around with some prompt injection guard rails frameworks. I know they don't mitigate attack classes, but they at least do something. I just got a bit miffed about the high false positive rates I saw in my own testing. This one has a low false positive rate. And I thought that was interesting.
carterschonwald
while i cant speak regarding arbitrary prompt injections, ive been using a simple approach i add to any llm harness i use, that seems to solve turn or role confusion being remotely viable. i really need to test my toolkit (carterkit) augmented harnesses on some of the more respectavle benchmarks
ekns
There is a simple way to mitigate prompt injection. Just check metadata only: is this action by the LLM suspicious given trusted metadata, blanking out the data
ninju
You misspelled 'execute' in the video ;)