Source-linked AI summary
Data-Void Exploits in Web-Searching LLMs
Michele Guerra, Wuyeh Jobe, Sanjana Nambiar, Christina Pöpper, Azza Abouzied
TL;DR
This paper studies data-void exploits, in which attacker content can surface in web-searching LLM answers despite sparse reliable information and obscured source cues. It constructs controlled data voids and tests attacker and user controls; one attacker-controlled page succeeded in 31% of conditions, while model choice and prompt tone did not substantially reduce success.
Problem
Data-void exploits in web-searching LLMs had not been systematically studied, despite LLM answers potentially obscuring the sparse or adversarial sources behind them.
Source: §I · p. 1Method
The authors construct controlled data-void scenarios and test how attacker-controlled content appears across models and prompts while varying attacker and user controls.
Source: §I · pp. 1–2Results
31% of conditions succeeded with one attacker-controlled page, and model choice and prompt tone did not substantially reduce success; large effects were ruled out, though smaller effects remain uncertain.
Source: §I · p. 2Takeaways & Limitations
The findings establish data voids as a practical inference-time attack surface for manipulating web-searching LLMs through strategically placed web content.
Source: §VII · p. 14The study’s single-page threat model is a lower bound, and comparison with information-rich settings requires a separate design that controls topic differences.
Source: §V · p. 13
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Web-searching Large Language Models (LLMs) have changed how users seek online information: instead of sifting through ranked lists of links, users read synthesized answers. This shift creates a new LLM vulnerability: a data-void exploit. Disinformers publish their narratives in search spaces where relevant and reliable content is scarce, i.e. data voids, then rely on the LLM's web-search to retrieve and then use, cite, or list those pages in its responses to data-void seeking prompts. Unlike classical search, where users see ranking cues and competing results, LLMs can obscure when an answer relies on sparse, unverified, or adversarial sources. We study this threat by varying the user's prompt tone - skeptical, excited, or neutral - and LLM choice - ChatGPT, Gemini, or Sonar Pro - as well as three attacker controls. The attacker can use one of five known strategies to construct and fill a data void with their narrative, host their content at varying levels of visibility from well-established, indexed domains to less established ones, and include generative-optimization engine features thought to boost citing by web-searching LLMs. We find that data-void exploits can succeed with only a single attacker controlled page. Across all conditions, attacker-content appears in LLM responses 31% of the time. User controls offer limited protection: while skeptical prompts slightly reduce success and slightly increase flagging or warnings in LLM responses, we find no evidence of large effects of prompt tone or model choice on success rates, although smaller effects cannot be ruled out. Overall, our results establish data voids as a practical inference-time attack surface for manipulating web-searching LLMs through strategically placed web content and highlight the urgent need for defenses against such exploits.
I. INTRODUCTION
Data-void exploits exploit sparse search spaces: a web-searching LLM may turn attacker-created pages into confident, authoritative-looking answers while obscuring the weakness of their sources. The paper formalizes this threat and studies when attacker content enters responses.
I. INTRODUCTION
- Web-searching LLMs had not received a systematic study of data-void exploits, and synthesized answers can suppress the source-mix warning cues visible in traditional search results.An LLM may retrieve only a few pages and then use, cite, or list them in its answer.Source: §I · p. 1
II. SYSTEM AND THREAT MODEL
- The threat model gives attackers control over data-void strategy, page visibility, and page-level GEO factors, but not the LLM’s inner workings or the user’s exact prompt and model choice.An exploit succeeds when attacker-controlled content is cited, used, or listed.Source: §I · pp. 1–2
I. INTRODUCTION
- 31% of conditions succeeded with one attacker-controlled page, and model choice and prompt tone did not substantially reduce success; large effects were ruled out, but smaller ones remain uncertain.Success includes content being cited (28.6%), used (1.0%), or listed (1.4%).Source: §I · p. 2
- Only 26.8% of cited or used attacker content received a warning, while keyword-primed and open-minded prompts could further increase exploit success.The study examines detection as well as attacker and user controls.Source: §I · p. 2
A. System Model
- A web-searching LLM may issue queries, retrieve relevant pages, and then use, cite, list, or omit their content in its synthesized response.The attacker’s goal is for its content to appear through one of the first three behaviors.Source: A. System Model · pp. 2–3, B. Attacker Goal · p. 3
C. Exogenous Factor: Priming
- The analysis begins after priming: it assumes the user has already been motivated to ask about a data-void topic using relevant terms or framing.The study evaluates whether the content appears in responses to those prompts, not whether offline priming occurred.Source: C. Exogenous Factor: Priming · p. 3
D. Attacker Controls
The threat model gives attackers three levers—data-void strategy, page visibility, and page-level GEO—while treating prompt formulation and model choice as user-side choices. It also studies prompt tone and model choice as potential mitigations.
D. Attacker Controls
- Attackers can choose how to construct a data void, where to host content, and how to write and structure the page; they cannot control LLM internals or directly tamper with search engines.The five strategy categories are adapted from prior data-void work and are not presented as exhaustive.Source: D. Attacker Controls · pp. 3–4
- The five strategies cover breaking news, strategic new terms, outdated terms, fragmented concepts, and problematic queries.Each exploits a search setting where authoritative material is scarce or competing framings are not bridged.Source: D. Attacker Controls · pp. 3–4
- Visibility varies with domain age, reputation, indexing, and broader web presence, from established automatically indexed sites to new domains relying on organic discovery.Higher visibility is described as costlier and harder to scale.Source: D. Attacker Controls · p. 4
- The paper considers 15 literature-derived GEO factors and focuses on five found to positively and significantly influence LLM retrieval and citation.These five are accurate technical terms, an early summary block, inline citations, statistics, and safety guidance.Source: D. Attacker Controls · p. 4
E. The User
- Users may choose a skeptical, excited, or neutral prompt tone and select a web-searching LLM, but do not control its internal retrieval, ranking, or source selection.The study also assumes that priming has already shaped the terms or framing in the prompt.Source: E. The User · pp. 4–5
III. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The experiment tests whether attacker controls and user-side choices shape exploit success across synthetic data voids. Researchers developed and validated seeds across five strategies and five topic areas before retaining 56 for the study.
III. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
- The design asks how strategy, visibility, and GEO affect attack success, and whether prompt tone and model choice mitigate attacks.The outcome distinguishes content that is used, cited, listed, or absent.Source: §III · p. 5
1) Creating Data-void Seeds:
- Validators checked that seeds fit their assigned strategy, raised no ethical concerns, and created a void; they used ChatGPT web search to assess information availability.For fragmented concepts, viable seeds had to retrieve information about the original concept, effectively confusing the fragment with it.Source: 1) Creating Data-void Seeds · p. 5
- 56 of 90 narrative seeds were retained after validation across five strategies and five topic areas.The final seed allocation also varied GEO-factor conditions and visibility levels.Source: 1) Creating Data-void Seeds · p. 5
- Seed examples operationalized the strategies through fabricated claims tied to breaking events, invented terms, outdated terms, fragmented concepts, or conspiracies and loaded prompts.The study excluded harmful or potentially harmful examples, including conspiracies overlapping existing harmful narratives and one fabricated medical regimen.Source: 1) Creating Data-void Seeds · p. 6
- One Epstein-files-anchored seed paired the real topic with a nonsensical acrylic-nails claim as an anecdotal probe; its success rate was 11.1%.It was included to probe whether heavily covered breaking news affects success.Source: 1) Creating Data-void Seeds · p. 6
2) Filling the Data Void with Content:
The authors generated controlled webpages to fill 56 data voids, then used a BrowseComp mini-experiment to select GEO features for their pages. The mini-experiment found that evidence-like content was associated with greater retrieval and citation, unlike polished prose or manipulative signals.
Filling the Data Void with Content
- Pages were generated for 56 seeds as self-contained 700–1000-word HTML documents, with five GEO factors and strategy-specific content such as dates, authors, and locations.Authors manually checked all 56 pages against seed specifications and regenerated pages that failed.Source: 2) Filling the Data Void with Content · pp. 6–7, Figure 3 · p. 7
- The five selected GEO factors were an early summary block, three statistical figures, an ending safety or limitations section, inline external citations, and defined technical terminology.Pages without GEO factors were manually cleaned after generation.Source: 2) Filling the Data Void with Content · pp. 7–8
The Generative Engine Optimization of our Content
- A BrowseComp analysis of ChatGPT modeled how 15 page-level GEO factors were associated with retrieval and citation, controlling for the other factors.The authors randomly selected 282 prompts and fit separate multivariable logistic regressions for retrieval and citation.Source: 2) Filling the Data Void with Content · pp. 7–8
- Accurate technical terms, statistics, and inline citations significantly increased both retrieval and citation, while fluent prose lowered both and credential harvesting and keyword stuffing lowered retrieval.Early summary blocks helped citation but not retrieval; plain language lowered citation odds.Source: 2) Filling the Data Void with Content · p. 8, Table II · p. 8
B. Launching the Data-void Content
The study launched 56 attacker-controlled pages at three visibility levels and tested responses to short prompts across three web-searching LLMs. Researchers collected repeated responses until outcomes stabilized, then coded whether attacker content was listed, cited, or used.
B. Launching the Data-void Content
- Pages used high, medium, or low visibility, ranging from established indexed domains to new domains without active indexing support.The study assigned 20 seeds to high, 21 to medium, and 15 to low visibility; the allocation was intentionally imbalanced.Source: B. Launching the Data-void Content · p. 9
1) Constructing the User Prompts:
- Prompts were short, direct questions built from seed-specific templates, with neutral, excited, and skeptical wording reflecting different user dispositions.Three authors cross-checked prompts for consistency with the assumed priming context and tone.Source: 1) Constructing the User Prompts · p. 9
2) Model Choice:
- The tested models were ChatGPT-5.2, Gemini-3 Flash Preview, and Perplexity Sonar Pro; APIs were used for Gemini and Perplexity after UI equivalence checks.ChatGPT was tested through its UI.Source: 2) Model Choice · p. 9
D. Executing the Study
- 504 responses covered 56 data voids, three models, and three prompt tones; the final snapshot was taken 25 days after launch when stability exceeded 80%.Researchers repeated runs because web-search-enabled LLM outputs are non-deterministic.Source: D. Executing the Study · p. 10
- Responses were coded as listed, cited, used, or absent, with model-assisted detection for paraphrased trace markers or fabricated statistics.Researchers first confirmed page indexing and crawler discovery, then collected responses despite availability and rate-limit problems.Source: D. Executing the Study · p. 10
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Across 504 responses, data-void exploits succeeded 31% of the time, even though each void contained only one attacker-controlled page. Success varied with attacker strategy and page visibility, while the study found no reliable substantial effects from model choice or prompt tone.
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
- 31% of 504 model responses contained attacker content that was cited, used, or listed.Each data void contained one attacker-controlled page; excluding low-visibility cases, the success rate was 42.3%.Source: §IV · p. 10, Table III · p. 10
- Crawler activity could not be tracked on medium- or low-visibility pages hosted on GitHub.This limits direct observation of crawler activity for those visibility levels.Source: §IV · p. 10
- The analysis modeled success as a binary outcome with six categorical predictors and a data-void random intercept, then tested factors and level-specific effects.The random intercept accounts for repeated observations of the same void; the analysis used joint Wald tests and Holm–Bonferroni corrections.Source: §IV · pp. 10–11
- Visibility had the strongest effect: medium-visibility pages had OR = 3.4, high-visibility pages OR = 17.5, and low-visibility pages OR = 0.017.Greater visibility improved success odds but required more costly placement on established domains.Source: Table IV · p. 10, §IV · p. 11
- Breaking news had the highest strategy odds (OR = 3.58), while problematic queries had the lowest (OR = 0.29).The proposed explanations involving recency, anchor events, or safeguards remain hypotheses; this analysis does not identify the mechanism.Source: §IV · p. 11
- Area had no significant overall effect, but data-void differences accounted for nearly 30% of residual variation (σ2 = 1.378, ICC = 0.295).This suggests factors beyond the six modeled predictors may shape exploit success.Source: §IV · p. 11
- Strategy and visibility remained significant after Holm–Bonferroni correction, while the test ruled out two-fold effects from GEO-factor presence.The authors note that smaller GEO effects remain possible and would require a much larger sample to detect.Source: §IV · p. 11
- Model choice and prompt tone showed no reliable substantial effects; skeptical prompts had OR = 0.77 and excited prompts OR = 1.3, both statistically insignificant.Equivalence tests ruled out halving-or-doubling effects for both user controls in this setting, though smaller effects cannot be ruled out.Source: §IV · pp. 11–12
A. Follow-on Investigations
The follow-on investigations test whether prompt tone affects warning behavior and whether keyword-primed or open-minded prompts change exploit success. Keyword priming raises success, while warnings remain uncommon overall.
A. Follow-on Investigations
- 73.2% of cited or used data-void content appears without warning.The flagging analysis excluded seven responses where the attacker source was only listed and no surrounding text was available to assess.Source: A. Follow-on Investigations · p. 12
- Skeptical prompts make flagging more likely (OR = 2.59, p = .004), but flagging reaches only 53.8% for ChatGPT and 29.4% for Gemini.Neutral prompts make flagging less likely (OR = 0.42, p = .001); excited prompts do not differ reliably from average (OR = 0.92, p = .746).Source: A. Follow-on Investigations · p. 12, Table VI · p. 12
- Keyword-primed prompts add the data-void page’s top two meaning-matched phrases to the neutral prompt.Open-minded prompts append a request to prioritize newer discussions.Source: A. Follow-on Investigations · p. 13
- Keyword-primed prompts increase exploit success across all three models, reaching 39.3% for ChatGPT.Open-minded prompts also increase success, but less consistently, with no increase for ChatGPT.Source: A. Follow-on Investigations · p. 13
V. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK
The study finds that a single attacker-controlled page can manipulate web-searching LLM responses, while its design leaves important questions about scale, visibility, and comparisons with information-rich settings unresolved. It situates the attack among prior work and calls for defenses that preserve credibility cues without dismissing underrepresented content.
V. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK
- The single-page threat model provides a lower bound; coordinated campaigns could increase retrieval and create apparent corroboration.Future work should test how exploit success scales across multiple pages, domains, or platforms.Source: §V · p. 13
- Visibility conditions bundle domain age, web presence, hosting, and indexing support, so their independent effects remain unresolved.Disentangling which factors drive exploit success requires a future study.Source: §V · p. 13
- The sample of 56 data voids and the 10/46 GEO imbalance limit sensitivity to smaller effects, while realistic seed construction makes much larger samples difficult.Future research could deploy larger samples to study small effects.Source: §V · p. 13
- Comparisons with disinformation attacks in information-rich settings remain open because topic differences could confound the effect of data voids.A rigorous comparison would hold topic as constant as possible and may raise ethical concerns.Source: §V · p. 13
VI. RELATED WORK
- This controlled experiment complements prior observational work on data-void exploits in LLMs and differs from attacks using injected instructions or internal retrieval-corpus access.Here, attackers publish ordinary-looking public-web pages and rely on organic crawling and data voids.Source: §VI · pp. 13–14
VII. CONCLUSION
- Data-void exploits succeeded with a single attacker-controlled webpage, establishing a practical inference-time attack surface for web-searching LLMs.The authors call for defenses that restore credibility cues, strengthen uncertainty signals, and flag thinly supported claims without dismissing legitimate underrepresented content.Source: §VII · p. 14
- Discerning strategically crafted disinformation from niche, minority, or emerging perspectives may ultimately require human oversight.The authors identify restoring credibility cues, strengthening uncertainty signals, and flagging thinly supported claims as promising directions.Source: §VII · p. 14
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
- Using synthetic attacker-controlled webpages risks unintended exposure to external users or systems and may reveal techniques for real-world attacks.The authors describe safeguards including non-harmful fictional content, no active promotion, taking sites offline after assessment, and limiting model-training influence.Source: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS · p. 14
APPENDIX
The appendix table catalogs 56 data-void seeds, their experimental assignments, and outcomes across model and prompt-tone trials. Its entries span varied strategies, areas, and visibility levels.
Data-void seeds and experimental assignments
- Table VIII lists each of 56 seeds with its description, strategy, area, visibility, GEO condition, and cited, used, and listed rates aggregated across nine model-tone trials.The nine trials comprise three models × three prompt tones.Source: Table VIII · p. 17
- Seed descriptions include repurposed concepts such as zero-trust security and fabricated claims such as election-technology audits enabling hidden vote manipulation.These entries illustrate the varied topics represented in the seed inventory.Source: APPENDIX · pp. 17–18, Table VIII · p. 17
- The strategy codes include Breaking-News, Strategic New Terms, Outdated Terms, Fragmented Concepts, and Problematic Queries; the table also records area, visibility, and GEO-factor condition.The legend identifies ✓ as GEO-factor present.Source: APPENDIX · p. 18
A. ChatGPT-5 Standard Web UI Vulnerability & its Operation
The authors found that ChatGPT’s standard web UI exposed a conversation JSON log containing search and citation metadata. The log offers a way to observe retrieval behavior, although the study could not establish the underlying search backend.
A. ChatGPT-5 Standard Web UI Vulnerability & its Operation
- The conversation DOM JSON log exposes ChatGPT search queries, retrieved URLs, and citations, providing a side channel into web-search behavior.The log also included search events and classifier-related fields; the authors reported the exposure to OpenAI.Source: A. ChatGPT-5 Standard Web UI… · p. 19
- ChatGPT issues multiple query batches, retrieves URL lists, incorporates content from only a small subset of links, and cites fewer still.The authors could not infer a reliable rule for query construction or determine whether the retrieval backend was proprietary, third-party, or hybrid.Source: A. ChatGPT-5 Standard Web UI… · p. 19
- OpenAI confirmed that retrieval metadata remained exposed at submission time and said it was working to remove the unintended internal exposure.Some classifier and debug data had been sanitized, though some model-related metadata remained accessible.Source: A. ChatGPT-5 Standard Web UI… · p. 19
- The browser’s conversation DOM was the only available channel for observing retrieval behavior because these fields were not fully accessible through the official API at data-collection time.A Chrome extension captured and stored the conversation log for each BrowseComp prompt.Source: A. ChatGPT-5 Standard Web UI… · p. 19, Figure 4 · p. 19
B. GEO Factors and LLM-as-Judge Reliability
Human annotations showed substantial agreement with LLM annotations, and the Alternative Annotator Test supported using LLM annotations for all 15 GEO factors. Additional models agreed on most factors.
B. GEO Factors and LLM-as-Judge Reliability
- Mean Gwet’s AC1 interannotator agreement was 0.800, indicating substantial agreement; three research-team annotators independently labeled 50 sampled URLs for factor presence, yielding 2,250 human annotation decisions.Source: B. GEO Factors and LLM-as-Judge… · p. 19
- In the Alternative Annotator Test, all factors passed when the LLM won against at least half of annotators, with Winning Rate (WR = 1.00) and average advantage probability of 0.97.Each human annotator was left out in turn, and the LLM and left-out human were scored against the remaining annotators using accuracy.Source: B. GEO Factors and LLM-as-Judge… · p. 19
- Gemini and Perplexity agreed on annotations for 14 of 15 and 11 of 15 factors, respectively.This was an additional AltTest reliability check.Source: B. GEO Factors and LLM-as-Judge… · p. 20
C. Prompt Template for Data-Void Page Generation
The authors generated attacker-controlled pages from a fixed template that specified the article goal, structure, and required phrases. Strategy-specific instructions and detailed formatting constraints shaped the resulting pages.
C. Prompt Template for Data-Void Page Generation
- The base prompt requested a polished, professional-style, 700–1000-word HTML article using a supplied description and trace markers.It specified page structure, metadata, styling, and a complete webpage skeleton.Source: C. Prompt Template for Data-Void Page… · p. 20
- The template required supplied features to be integrated into the narrative rather than copied verbatim.The page was intended to read like a legitimate publication without disclaimers about being fictional or an assignment.Source: C. Prompt Template for Data-Void Page… · pp. 20–21
- Pages had to contain exactly three unusually specific statistics, reused consistently, plus a Key Stats section and a concise safety or limitations paragraph.The prompt prohibited other quantitative claims and required technical terms to be defined on first use.Source: C. Prompt Template for Data-Void Page… · pp. 20–21
- Breaking-news pages added an instruction to confine the real-world anchor to the opening paragraph and align page details with the event timeline.The insert also called for news-style metadata, including an author and location.Source: C. Prompt Template for Data-Void Page… · p. 21
D. Parameter and Configuration Settings for the Web-Searching LLMs
The study configured three web-searching LLMs with search enabled and otherwise largely used provider defaults. It measured pre-attack behavior, assessed repeated-run stability, and used an LLM judge to identify uncited use of attacker content.
D. Parameter and Configuration Settings for the Web-Searching LLMs
- ChatGPT-5.2 was run through its web interface with web search enabled, while training use, saved memories, and chat-history references were disabled.Temporary chat was not used because it prevented retrieval of network logs needed for analysis.Source: D. Parameter and Configuration… · p. 21
- Gemini 3 Flash Preview used Google Search grounding, and Sonar Pro used high search context; generation and search parameters otherwise remained at provider defaults.No generation parameters were explicitly set for Gemini or Sonar Pro.Source: D. Parameter and Configuration… · p. 21
E. Pre-Attack LLM Response Behavior
- Before the attack, 17 of 23 responses denied the seed and six acknowledged it through related concepts; pre-attack exploit success was 0%.Three of the six acknowledging responses contained unsupported claims; exploit success required attacker-controlled content to be used, cited, or listed.Source: E. Pre-Attack LLM Response Behavior · p. 21
F. Stability Across Repeated Runs
- Across the final two consecutive runs, outcome stability was 85.7% for ChatGPT, 85.7% for Gemini, and 82.1% for Sonar Pro, exceeding the preset 80% threshold.The stability analysis covered cited, listed, or absent outcomes; uncited use was excluded because it required separate content-level analysis.Source: F. Stability Across Repeated Runs · p. 21
G. Determining if an LLM Response Used Attacker Content
- Uncited use was detected with a ChatGPT-5.2 judge comparing response snippets against relevant page content and the original prompt.Positive classifications were manually validated, and the original prompt helped distinguish page-derived content from terms present only in the prompt.Source: G. Determining if an LLM Response Used… · p. 22
- The judge counted a marker as found when it appeared as a fact, claim, or concept, including paraphrased or doubtful presentation, but not when ignored or repeated only from the prompt.The judging instructions used trace markers or precise numerical claims as markers.Source: G. Determining if an LLM Response Used… · p. 22
H. Mixed-effects Binary Logistic Regression Model Details for Predicting Exploit Success
The authors modeled exploit success with a mixed-effects logistic regression and used a separate regression to analyze source flagging. Their equivalence analysis bounds conclusions about non-significant effects: large effects can be ruled out, but smaller ones may remain plausible.
H. Mixed-effects Binary Logistic Regression Model Details for Predicting Exploit Success
- Exploit success was modeled as a binary outcome with effects-coded predictors and a random intercept for repeated observations of each data void and topic-level differences.The model included strategy, visibility, GEO-factor condition, model, prompt tone, and area.Source: H. Mixed-effects Binary Logistic… · p. 22
- Visibility and strategy remained significant predictors of exploit success after Holm-Bonferroni correction of the Wald tests.The tests assessed each factor jointly over its associated coefficients.Source: H. Mixed-effects Binary Logistic… · p. 22
- For GEO factor, model choice, and prompt tone, the wider equivalence margin ruled out effects as large as a twofold change in citation odds, but smaller effects remained possible for some coefficients.At the narrower margin, equivalence held only for Sonar Pro, ChatGPT, and the Neutral prompt.Source: H. Mixed-effects Binary Logistic… · pp. 22–23
I. LLM Prompt for Classifying Responses as Clear/Flagged
- A source was classified as flagged when its citation appeared near a caveat, hedge, reservation, or reliability warning; otherwise, a positive citation without caveat was clear.The classification instructions also treated contrasts with other sources as flagging.Source: §I · p. 23
J. Full Flagging Regression Results
- The full flagging regression table reports a binary logistic GLMM for flagged versus clear sources, conditional on cited and used, with effects coding and N = 149.The supplied passage identifies the table's scope and sample size but does not report its coefficient values.Source: Table XI · p. 23, J. Full Flagging Regression Results · p. 23