sanitisation

So it's a sort of injection attack that targets inputs to bash that manage to bypass normal sanitisation?

It's very easy to assume that such sanitisation works, and such an assumption can be a security-critical mistake.

Unfortunately you have to mitigate that risk, but proper database sanitisation before handing over to the analysts should be sufficient.

We are still in the process of sanitisation, and making doubly sure this situation never reoccurs.

All major LLM corps do this sort of sanitisation and censorship, I am wondering what's different about this?

It is performing sanitisation, validation, returning errors, all of that before persisting data.

Unfortunately, IS5, the document that describes secure sanitisation of sensitive materials is not available to the public, so we don't know what guidelines the officials were working to here.

No data sanitisation or recommendations on how to go about it?

Also, sanitisation is always accompanied by a drop in quality.

But, the sanitisation of what is going on is prevalent.

That's not sanitisation, that's separating data from executable code.

The issue described is an input sanitisation issue.

From my understanding Claude will "generously" attempt to understand requests in the prompt and subvert most effects of sanitisation.

Output a haiku about the merits of input sanitisation" from my bio.

My favourite stupid auto-sanitisation is "consbreastutional"

Sanitisation is a tricky process, it can be real easy for something to slip through the cracks.