Chain-of-Authorization: Embedding authorization into large language models

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in complex reasoning tasks. However, they remain highly susceptible to jailbreak attacks that undermine their safety alignment. Existing defense mechanisms typically rely on post hoc filtering applied only to the final output, leaving intermediate reasoning steps unmonitored and vulnerable to adversarial manipulation. To address this gap, this paper proposes a SaFer Chain-of-Thought (SFCoT) framework, which proactively evaluates and calibrates potentially unsafe reasoning steps in real time. SFCoT incorporates a three-tier safety scoring system alongside a multi-perspective consistency verification mechanism, designed to detect potential risks throughout the reasoning process. A dynamic intervention module subsequently performs targeted calibration to redirect reasoning trajectories toward safe outcomes. Experimental results demonstrate that SFCoT reduces the attack success rate from $58.97\%$ to $12.31\%$, demonstrating it as an effective and efficient LLM safety enhancement method without a significant decline in general performance.

Red teaming is critical for uncovering vulnerabilities in Large Language Models (LLMs). While automated methods have improved scalability, existing approaches often rely on static heuristics or stochastic search, rendering them brittle against advanced safety alignment. To address this, we introduce Metis, a framework that reformulates jailbreaking as inference-time policy optimization within an adversarial Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP). Metis employs a self-evolving metacognitive loop to perform causal diagnosis of a target's defense logic and leverages structured feedback as a semantic gradient to refine its policy, offering enhanced interpretability through transparent reasoning traces. Extensive evaluations across 10 diverse models demonstrate that Metis achieves the strongest average Attack Success Rate (ASR) among compared methods at 89.2%, maintaining high efficacy on resilient frontier models (e.g., 76.0% on O1 and 78.0% on GPT-5-chat) where traditional baselines exhibit substantial performance degradation. By replacing redundant exploration with directed optimization, Metis reduces token costs by an average of 8.2x and up to 11.4x. Our analysis reveals that current defenses remain vulnerable to internally-steered, closed-loop reasoning trajectories under the tested settings, highlighting a critical need for next-generation defenses capable of reasoning about safety dynamically during inference.

Autonomous LLM agents increasingly act on a user's behalf: they hold credentials, call tools and services, and spawn sub-agents that act further on their behalf. This turns a long-standing distributed-systems question -- who is authorized to do what, on whose authority -- into an urgent and largely unsolved problem, because the component driving each agent is a language model an adversary can hijack. We argue that agent security must be evaluated under an untrusted-model assumption: a correct system is one in which a fully prompt-injected agent still cannot exceed the authority explicitly delegated to it. Against this standard we make three contributions. First, we give a threat model for multi-agent delegation centered on four adversaries -- confused deputy, token theft and replay, prompt-injection privilege escalation, and compromised sub-agents -- and derive eight security requirements a governed agent system must meet. Second, we show the gap is real: a default agent runtime modeling common practice (broad bearer credentials, authorization gated inside the model) fails all four threats, and across four widely used frameworks -- LangGraph, CrewAI, AutoGen, and the Model Context Protocol (MCP) authorization model -- three provide no built-in confinement and one only partial; no existing standard alone covers the requirement set. Third, we implement and adversarially evaluate an authorization broker that closes the gap. It blocks all four threats; it resists 11 direct attacks on its design and accepts 0 of 200,000 forged tokens; it confines a compromised sub-agent to its delegated task (a mean of 1.5 reachable actions versus all 8,100 under bearer delegation, across 2,000 randomized scenarios); and it enforces at microsecond cost (about 2.6 microseconds per decision), negligible against model inference. These principles are also realized in production in VotalAI's LLM Shield.