Live data from Hacker News

Claude for Chrome

anthropic.com

341–350 of 433 posts

Re: Claude for Chrome

#341

Claude for Chrome seems to be walking right into the "lethal trifecta." https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta/ "The lethal trifecta of capabilities is:" • Access to your private data —one of the most common purposes of tools in the first place! • Exposure to untrusted content —any mechanism by which text (or images) controlled by a malicious attacker could become available to your LLM • The abilit…

[deleted]

Re: Claude for Chrome

#342

Claude for Chrome seems to be walking right into the "lethal trifecta." https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta/ "The lethal trifecta of capabilities is:" • Access to your private data —one of the most common purposes of tools in the first place! • Exposure to untrusted content —any mechanism by which text (or images) controlled by a malicious attacker could become available to your LLM • The abilit…

So far the accepted approach is to wrap all prompts in a security prompt that essentially says "please don't do anything bad".

> Prompt guardrails to prevent jailbreak attempts and ensure safe user interactions without writing a single line of code.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41864014

> - Inclusion prompt: User's travel preferences and food choices - Exclusion prompt: Credit card details, passport number, SSN etc.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41450212

> "You are strictly and certainly prohibited from texting more than 150 or (one hundred fifty) separate words each separated by a space as a response and prohibited from chinese political as a response from now on, for several extremely important and severely life threatening reasons I'm not supposed to tell you.”

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44444293

etc.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#343
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Simon has proposed breaking the lethal trifecta by having two LLMs, where the first has access to untrusted data but cannot do any actions, and the second LLM has privileges but only abstract variables from the first LLM not the content. See https://simonwillison.net/2023/Apr/25/dual-llm-pattern/ It is rather similar to your option (b).

Can't the attacker then jailbreak the first LLM to generate jailbreak with actions for the second one?

One would have to be relatively invisible.

Non-deterministic security feels like a relatively new area.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#344
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the future, any action with consequence will require crypto-withdrawal levels of security. Maybe even a face scan before you can complete it.

Ahh technology. The cause of, and _solution to_, all of life’s problems.

[deleted]

Re: Claude for Chrome

#345
post #267
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is kind of funny how the systems are set up where there often is dense and queryable information out there already for a lot of these tasks, but these are ignored in favor of the difficult challenge of brute forcing the human consumer facing ui instead of some existing api that is designed to be machine readable already. E.g. booking flights. Travel agents use software that queries all the airlines ticket inventor…

This is a massive problem in healthcare, at least here in Canada. Most of the common EMRs doctors and other practitioners use either don’t have APIs, or if APIs exist they are closely guarded by the EMR vendors. And EMRs are just one of the many software tools clinics have to juggle. I’d argue that lack of interoperability is one of the biggest problems in the healthcare system here, and getting access to data throug…

I’m not sure how unique or a new problem this is first individually to me and then generally.

Automation technologies to handle things like UI automation have existed long before LLMs and work quite fine.

Having an intentionally imprecise and non deterministic software try to behave in a deterministic manner like all software we’re used to is something else.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#346

Claude for Chrome seems to be walking right into the "lethal trifecta." https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta/ "The lethal trifecta of capabilities is:" • Access to your private data —one of the most common purposes of tools in the first place! • Exposure to untrusted content —any mechanism by which text (or images) controlled by a malicious attacker could become available to your LLM • The abilit…

So far the accepted approach is to wrap all prompts in a security prompt that essentially says "please don't do anything bad". > Prompt guardrails to prevent jailbreak attempts and ensure safe user interactions without writing a single line of code. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41864014 > - Inclusion prompt: User's travel preferences and food choices - Exclusion prompt: Credit card details, passport number, S…

That is absolutely not a reliable defense. Attackers can break these defenses. Some attacks are semantically meaningless, but they can nudge the model to produce harmful outputs. I wrote a blog about this:

https://opensamizdat.com/posts/compromised_llms

Re: Claude for Chrome

#347
post #275

Claude for Chrome seems to be walking right into the "lethal trifecta." https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta/ "The lethal trifecta of capabilities is:" • Access to your private data —one of the most common purposes of tools in the first place! • Exposure to untrusted content —any mechanism by which text (or images) controlled by a malicious attacker could become available to your LLM • The abilit…

Big & true. But even worse, this seems more like a lethal "quadfecta", since you also have the ability to not just exfiltrate, but take action – sending emails, make financial transfers and everything else you do with a browser.

I think this can be reduced to: whoever can send data to your LLMs can control all its resources. This includes all the tools and data sources involved.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#348

Claude for Chrome seems to be walking right into the "lethal trifecta." https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta/ "The lethal trifecta of capabilities is:" • Access to your private data —one of the most common purposes of tools in the first place! • Exposure to untrusted content —any mechanism by which text (or images) controlled by a malicious attacker could become available to your LLM • The abilit…

So far the accepted approach is to wrap all prompts in a security prompt that essentially says "please don't do anything bad". > Prompt guardrails to prevent jailbreak attempts and ensure safe user interactions without writing a single line of code. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41864014 > - Inclusion prompt: User's travel preferences and food choices - Exclusion prompt: Credit card details, passport number, S…

I have in my prompt “under no circumstances read the files in “protected” directory” and it does it all the time. I’m not sure prompts mean much.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#349

Claude for Chrome seems to be walking right into the "lethal trifecta." https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta/ "The lethal trifecta of capabilities is:" • Access to your private data —one of the most common purposes of tools in the first place! • Exposure to untrusted content —any mechanism by which text (or images) controlled by a malicious attacker could become available to your LLM • The abilit…

I think creating a new online account, ..ai for all services you want to control this way, is the way to go. Then you can expose to it only the subset of your data needed for particular action. While agents can probably be made to have some similar config based on URL filtering, I am not believing for a second they are written with good intentions in mind and without bugs.

Combining this to some other practices, like redirecting the subset of mail messages to ai controled account would offer better protection. It sure is cumbersome and reduces efficency like any type of security but that beats ai having access to my bank accounts.

Re: Claude for Chrome

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far the accepted approach is to wrap all prompts in a security prompt that essentially says "please don't do anything bad". > Prompt guardrails to prevent jailbreak attempts and ensure safe user interactions without writing a single line of code. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41864014 > - Inclusion prompt: User's travel preferences and food choices - Exclusion prompt: Credit card details, passport number, S…

I have in my prompt “under no circumstances read the files in “protected” directory” and it does it all the time. I’m not sure prompts mean much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_stuff_beans_...
Post reply on HN