On the Validity of Traditional Vulnerability Scoring Systems for Adversarial Attacks against LLMs

Abstract

This research investigates the effectiveness of established vulnerability metrics, such as the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS), in evaluating attacks against Large Language Models (LLMs), with a focus on Adversarial Attacks (AAs). The study explores the influence of both general and specific metric factors in determining vulnerability scores, providing new perspectives on potential enhancements to these metrics. This study adopts a quantitative approach, calculating and comparing the coefficient of variation of vulnerability scores across 56 adversarial attacks on LLMs. The attacks, sourced from various research papers, and obtained through online databases, were evaluated using multiple vulnerability metrics. Scores were determined by averaging the values assessed by three distinct LLMs. The results indicate that existing scoring-systems yield vulnerability scores with minimal variation across different attacks, suggesting that many of the metric factors are inadequate for assessing adversarial attacks on LLMs. This is particularly true for context-specific factors or those with predefined value sets, such as those in CVSS. These findings support the hypothesis that current vulnerability metrics, especially those with rigid values, are limited in evaluating AAs on LLMs, highlighting the need for the development of more flexible, generalized metrics tailored to such attacks. This research offers a fresh analysis of the effectiveness and applicability of established vulnerability metrics, particularly in the context of Adversarial Attacks on Large Language Models, both of which have gained significant attention in recent years. Through extensive testing and calculations, the study underscores the limitations of these metrics and opens up new avenues for improving and refining vulnerability assessment frameworks specifically tailored for LLMs.