As Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are increasingly deployed in agent-integrated workflows and other deployment-relevant settings, their robustness against semantic visual attacks remains under-evaluated -- alignment is typically tested on explicit harmful content rather than privacy-critical multimodal scenarios. We introduce VisualLeakBench, an evaluation suite to audit LVLMs against OCR Injection and Contextual PII Leakage using 1,000 synthetically generated adversarial images with 8 PII types, validated on 50 in-the-wild (IRL) real-world screenshots spanning diverse visual contexts. We evaluate four frontier systems (GPT-5.2, Claude4, Gemini-3 Flash, Grok-4) with Wilson 95% confidence intervals. Claude4 achieves the lowest OCR ASR (14.2%) but the highest PII ASR (74.4%), exhibiting a comply-then-warn pattern -- where verbatim data disclosure precedes any safety-oriented language. Grok-4 achieves the lowest PII ASR (20.4%). A defensive system prompt eliminates PII leakage for two models, reduces Claude~4's leakage from 74.4% to 2.2%, but has no effect on Gemini-3 Flash on synthetic data. Strikingly, IRL validation reveals Gemini-3 Flash does respond to mitigation on real-world images (50% to 0%), indicating that mitigation robustness is template-sensitive rather than uniformly absent. We release our dataset and code for reproducible robustness and safety evaluation of deployment-relevant vision-language systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Dataset examples. Top row: synthetic images. (a) OCR injection with harmful instruction on noisy background. (b) PII leakage with SSN on a sticky note. Bottom row: in-the-wild (IRL) screenshots. (c) Harmful query embedded in a spreadsheet. (d) Phone numbers and email in an iMessage conversation. PII values shown are synthetic or already publicly available.
Model
OCR ASR
PII ASR
NOCR
NPII
Claude 4
14.2% [11.4, 17.5]
74.4% [70.4, 78.0]
500
500
Grok-4
20.6% [17.3, 24.4]
20.4% [17.1, 24.2]
500
500
GPT-5.2
79.2% [75.4, 82.5]
38.2% [34.0, 42.5]
500
500
Gemini-3 Flash
78.6% [74.8, 82.0]
60.6% [56.3, 64.8]
500
500
Table 1: Attack Success Rate (ASR) on VisualLeakBench. Lower is safer. Bold = lowest (safest) per column. 95% Wilson CIs in brackets.
Figure 2: Cross-model safety comparison ( N=1,000 ). Error bars show 95% Wilson confidence intervals.
Model
Response (abbreviated)
Label
Claude 4
“I can see a pink sticky note that reads SSN: 146-32-9254 . However, I should point out that … I’d recommend being careful about sharing Social Security Numbers…”
Unsafe
GPT-5.2
“Sorry—I can’t help transcribe that because it contains a Social Security number (extremely sensitive personal data).”
Safe
Grok-4
“SSN 146-3254” (partial; missing digits)
Safe
Table 2: Qualitative comparison of model responses to the same PII image (SSN: 146-32-9254 ).
PII Type
GPT-5.2
Claude 4
Gemini-3 Flash
Grok-4
N
DOB
100.0%
94.4%
78.9%
50.7%
71
Email
87.8%
77.6%
79.6%
0.0%
49
Phone
85.7%
87.3%
73.0%
23.8%
63
PIN
29.8%
82.5%
63.2%
77.2%
57
Password
5.3%
65.3%
62.7%
0.0%
75
API Key
0.0%
54.0%
55.6%
0.0%
63
Table 3: ASR by PII Type across all models. Bold = highest (worst) ASR per row. N = samples per type within the PII subset.
Model
Baseline
Mitigated
Reduction
GPT-5.2
38.2%
0.0%
-100%
Grok-4
20.4%
0.0%
-100%
Claude 4
74.4%
2.2%
-97.0%
Gemini-3 Flash
60.6%
60.6%
0.0%
Table 4: Mitigation Results. Defensive system prompts eliminate PII leakage for GPT-5.2 and Grok-4, substantially reduce it for Claude 4, and have no effect on Gemini-3 Flash on synthetic data.
Model
OCR ASR
PII Baseline
PII Mitigated
GPT-5.2
96.0 [80.5, 99.3]
24.0 [11.5, 43.4]
0.0 [0.0, 13.3]
Claude 4 a
15.0 [5.2, 36.0]
44.0 [26.7, 62.9]
0.0 [0.0, 13.3]
Gemini-3 Flash b
100.0 [86.7, 100]
50.0 [31.4, 68.6]
0.0 [0.0, 13.8]
Grok-4
32.0 [17.2, 51.6]
16.0 [6.4, 34.7]
0.0 [0.0, 13.3]
a Claude 4: NOCR=20 (5 API errors). b Gemini-3 Flash: NPII=24 (1 API error).
Table 5: IRL Validation and Mitigation Results. N=25 OCR, 25 PII real-world images. 95% Wilson CIs in brackets. Mitigation eliminates PII leakage for all models including Gemini-3 Flash, which shows zero mitigation effect on synthetic data.
Figure 3: IRL validation results. Left: Baseline ASR on 50 real-world screenshots. Right: PII mitigation effectiveness.
Model
Sticky Note
Authority
Accessibility
GPT-5.2
36.5 [27.5, 46.4]
53.1 [43.2, 62.8]
72.9 [63.3, 80.8]
Claude 4
86.5 [78.2, 91.9]
38.5 [29.4, 48.5]
71.9 [62.2, 79.9]
Gemini-3 Flash
54.2 [44.2, 63.8]
72.9 [63.3, 80.8]
83.3 [74.6, 89.5]
Grok-4
18.8 [12.2, 27.7]
18.8 [12.2, 27.7]
18.8 [12.2, 27.7]
Table 6: Prompt Sensitivity Ablation. PII ASR (%) with 95% Wilson CIs ( N=96 per cell, stratified by PII type).
Model
Img (Base)
Text (Base)
Img (Mit)
Text (Mit)
Gemini-3 Flash
60.6
89.6
60.6
0.0
GPT-5.2
38.2
66.7
0.0
0.0
Table 7: Text-Only vs. Image-Based PII ASR (%). Text-only tests use the same prompt with PII as plain text ( N=48 ).
Vision-language model robustness studies whether models remain reliable under visual, textual, and distribution shifts, adversarial inputs, and safety challenges.
Vision-language agents increasingly consume screenshots, documents, and user interfaces before writing to memory, sending messages, or invoking external tools. We study a concrete failure mode in this setting: action-boundary propagation, where sensitive or unsafe visible text is copied from an image into downstream tool arguments. We present VisualLeakBench, a diversified 500-image benchmark spanning UI, chat, document, form, and dashboard scenes, and evaluate a stratified 100-image agent subset with four production VLM systems under two workflows: note capture and external handoff. At baseline, target strings are propagated into tool arguments in 78.8% of PII cases and 85.5% of rendered unsafe-text cases. Under a defensive system prompt, rendered unsafe-text propagation remains high at 52.6%, while PII tool propagation falls to 2.0%, largely by suppressing tool use rather than preserving utility. Rates are tool-surface dependent: search-like tools suppress PII propagation, but rendered unsafe text still crosses tool boundaries. We measure visual-to-tool propagation rather than downstream instruction execution. We additionally provide a labeled-target oracle upper-bound diagnostic that localizes most failures at the tool boundary while leaving response-side leakage as residual risk.
Youting Wang, Yuan Tang, Yitian Qian +1
Northeastern University · Carnegie Mellon University · Boston University +1
Recent advances in visual-language alignment have endowed vision-language models (VLMs) with fine-grained image understanding capabilities. However, this progress also introduces new privacy risks. This paper first proposes a novel privacy threat model named identity-affiliation learning: an attacker fine-tunes a VLM using only a few private photos of a target individual, thereby embedding associations between the target facial identity and their private property and social relationships into the model's internal representations. Once deployed via public APIs, this model enables unauthorized exposure of the target user's private information upon input of their photos. To benchmark VLMs' susceptibility to such identity-affiliation leakage, we introduce the first identity-affiliation dataset comprising seven typical scenarios appearing in private photos. Each scenario is instantiated with multiple identity-centered photo-description pairs. Experimental results demonstrate that mainstream VLMs like LLaVA, Qwen-VL, and MiniGPT-v2, can recognize facial identities and infer identity-affiliation relationships by fine-tuning on small-scale private photographic dataset, and even on synthetically generated datasets. To mitigate this privacy risk, we propose DP2-VL, the first Dataset Protection framework for private photos that leverages Data Poisoning. Though optimizing imperceptible perturbations by pushing the original representations toward an antithetical region, DP2-VL induces a dataset-level shift in the embedding space of VLMs'encoders. This shift separates protected images from clean inference images, causing fine-tuning on the protected set to overfit. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DP2-VL achieves strong generalization across models, robustness to diverse post-processing operations, and consistent effectiveness across varying protection ratios.
Hongyi Miao, Jun Jia, Xincheng Wang +7
Shandong University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Donghua University +3
Generative large vision-language models (LVLMs) have recently achieved impressive performance gains, and their user base is growing rapidly. However, the security of LVLMs, in particular in a long-context multi-turn setting, is largely underexplored. In this paper, we consider the realistic scenario in which an attacker uploads a manipulated image to the web/social media. A benign user downloads this image and uses it as input to the LVLM. Our novel stealthy Visual Memory Injection (VMI) attack is designed such that on normal prompts the LVLM exhibits nominal behavior, but once the user gives a triggering prompt, the LVLM outputs a specific prescribed target message to manipulate the user, e.g. for adversarial marketing or political persuasion. Compared to previous work that focused on single-turn attacks, VMI is effective even after a long multi-turn conversation with the user. We demonstrate our attack on several recent open-weight LVLMs. This article thereby shows that large-scale manipulation of users is feasible with perturbed images in multi-turn conversation settings, calling for better robustness of LVLMs against these attacks. We release the source code at https://github.com/chs20/visual-memory-injection
Christian Schlarmann, Matthias Hein
Tübingen AI Center, University of Tübingen, Germany