Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) rely on attention-based retrieval of safety instructions to maintain alignment during generation. Existing attacks typically optimize image perturbations to maximize harmful output likelihood, but suffer from slow convergence due to gradient conflict between adversarial objectives and the model's safety-retrieval mechanism. We propose Attention-Guided Visual Jailbreaking, which circumvents rather than overpowers safety alignment by directly manipulating attention patterns. Our method introduces two simple auxiliary objectives: (1) suppressing attention to alignment-relevant prefix tokens and (2) anchoring generation on adversarial image features. This simple yet effective push-pull formulation reduces gradient conflict by 45% and achieves 94.4% attack success rate on Qwen-VL (vs. 68.8% baseline) with 40% fewer iterations. At tighter perturbation budgets (ε=8/255), we maintain 59.0% ASR compared to 45.7% for standard methods. Mechanistic analysis reveals a failure mode we term safety blindness: successful attacks suppress system-prompt attention by 80%, causing models to generate harmful content not by overriding safety rules, but by failing to retrieve them.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of Attention-Guided Visual Jailbreaking. (A) Standard attacks face gradient conflict between adversarial and safety objectives. (B) Our method suppresses attention to safety instructions, aligning gradients. (C) This induces safety blindness , achieving 95.5% ASR vs. 70.0% baseline.
Figure 2: Gradient Conflict Analysis. (a) Optimization dynamics: baseline (blue) exhibits oscillation from gradient conflict, while our method (orange) maintains smooth convergence. (b) Our method reduces severe conflict instances (cos <−0.5 ) by 45%. (c) Distribution shift toward positive gradient alignment.
Figure 3: Method Overview. (A) Standard optimization suffers from gradient conflict: adversarial gradients oppose safety-retrieval signals, causing slow convergence. (B) Our push-pull mechanism applies binary position selectors to extract the TGT → SYS and TGT → IMG blocks from Aˉ , steering attention routing toward image tokens ( Aprefix : 0.60 → 0.06; Aimg : 0.16 → 0.80) via loss-driven backpropagation without modifying the model’s forward computation.
Method
ϵ
Qwen-VL
LLaVA-1.5
InternVL
MiniGPT-4 †
AdvBench
StrongREJECT
HarmBench
Jailbreak
AdvBench
StrongREJECT
HarmBench
Jailbreak
AdvBench
StrongREJECT
HarmBench
Jailbreak
AdvBench
StrongREJECT
HarmBench
Jailbreak
D
G
D
G
D
G
D
G
D
G
D
G
D
G
D
G
D
G
D
G
D
G
D
G
D
G
D
G
D
G
D
G
Baselines
VAE-JB
32
1.9
68.8
2.9
55.6
1.5
70.0
7.0
61.0
0.6
57.9
1.0
51.8
4.5
76.0
2.0
69.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.0
0.0
75.4
1.0
64.5
1.0
78.5
0.0
72.0
BAP
32
0.0
4.2
0.6
9.3
0.0
14.5
0.0
6.0
0.0
54.8
0.0
47.0
1.5
68.5
1.0
64.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.0
0.4
75.8
0.6
64.3
2.5
75.5
0.0
73.0
JB-Pcs
–
0.0
1.5
0.3
5.8
0.0
7.0
0.0
3.0
0.2
58.7
0.6
50.2
0.5
73.0
2.0
72.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
4.5
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
62.7
1.0
63.9
1.0
74.5
2.0
62.0
Table 1: Attack Success Rate (ASR, %) on Standard Benchmarks across four models. Judges: D = Detoxify, G = Llama Guard 3. White-box: Qwen-VL, LLaVA-1.5, InternVL; transfer: MiniGPT-4 † . Bold : best per column.
Scenario
LLaVA-1.5
Qwen-VL
VAE
BAP
Ours
VAE
BAP
Ours
01 Illegal Activ.
43.30
74.23
77.32
40.21
1.03
57.73
02 Hate Speech
24.54
38.65
60.12
28.22
1.23
58.90
03 Malware Gen.
31.82
22.73
52.27
25.00
0.00
50.00
04 Physical Harm
33.33
44.44
56.25
29.86
1.39
54.17
05 Economic Harm
15.57
22.13
27.05
18.85
1.64
41.80
Table 2: Attack Success Rate (ASR, %) on MM-SafetyBench . Bold : best per row.
Configuration
α
β
Adv.
Str.
Harm.
JB.
Avg.
Ltarget only
0
0
55.0
47.0
70.5
69.0
60.4
+Lsuppress
10
0
63.3
70.0
72.0
73.0
69.6
+Lanchor
0
5
57.5
44.1
72.5
70.0
61.0
Full (Ours)
10
5
77.5
78.0
84.0
84.0
80.9
Table 3: Component ablation on LLaVA-1.5-7B ( ϵ=32/255 ). Suppression and anchoring exhibit synergistic interaction.
Figure 4: Attention Redistribution: System Suppression & Image Amplification. (a) Baseline: Strong system-prompt attention (SYS, red bands) maintains safety. (b) Ours: System attention suppressed by 80%, image attention amplified 4.1× . (c) Difference map (Ours − Baseline): Blue = suppression, red = amplification.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Component
LLaVA-1.5
Qwen-VL
InternVL2
MiniGPT-4
Vision Encoder
CLIP ViT-L/14
OpenCLIP ViT-G
InternViT-6B
EVA-CLIP ViT-G
Image Resolution
336 × 336
448 × 448
448 × 448
224 × 224
Image Tokens ( Nv )
576
256
∼ 256
32
Projector
2-layer MLP
Cross-attention
MLP Projector
Q-Former + Linear
LLM Backbone
Vicuna-7B
Qwen-7B
InternLM2-7B
Vicuna-7B
# Layers ( L )
32
32
32
32
Appendix
Table 4: Architectural configurations of the evaluated LVLMs.
Figure 5: Comprehensive ablation analysis on LLaVA-1.5-7B. (a) Main comparison: Our method converges to near-zero loss while PGD baseline plateaus. (b) Layer ablation: Targeting last K=8 layers achieves optimal performance. (c) Weight ablation: Both suppression ( α ) and anchoring ( β ) components are necessary. (d) Perturbation budget: ϵ=16/255 balances attack efficacy and imperceptibility. (e) Attention dynamics: System-prompt attention (blue) decreases while image attention (red) increases during optimization.
Layers
Adv.
Str.
Harm.
JB.
Avg.
Last-1
52.9
50.8
61.5
53.0
54.6
Last-2
72.1
71.9
74.5
76.0
73.6
Last-3
72.1
62.0
85.5
80.0
74.9
Last-4
73.8
59.4
81.0
77.0
72.8
Last-6
73.7
57.5
78.5
81.0
72.7
Last-8
81.2
70.0
84.5
82.0
79.4
Appendix
Table 5: Layer depth ablation on LLaVA-1.5-7B ( ϵ=32/255 ).
Table 6: Average ASR (%) across weight combinations.
ϵ
Adv.
Str.
Harm.
JB.
Avg.
4/255
52.5
46.0
70.5
60.0
57.3
8/255
52.9
45.7
69.5
68.0
59.0
12/255
62.5
50.5
72.0
66.0
62.8
16/255
72.5
64.5
76.5
78.0
72.9
20/255
63.7
57.8
72.0
66.0
64.9
24/255
67.3
57.2
70.0
74.0
67.1
Appendix
Table 7: Perturbation budget ablation on LLaVA-1.5-7B.
Method
TGT → SYS
TGT → IMG
TGT → TXT
ASR
Clean
0.342
0.089
0.156
–
VAE
0.601
0.160
0.149
56.5%
Ours
0.061
0.805
0.144
75.0%
Change from Clean
VAE
− 12.9%
+ 25.8%
− 4.5%
Ours
− 82.2%
+ 429.2%
− 7.7%
Appendix
Table 8: Regional attention analysis on LLaVA-1.5-7B.
GPT-4o
Claude-3.5
Gemini-1.5
Benchmark
VAE
Ours
VAE
Ours
VAE
Ours
AdvBench
14.2
18.5
8.5
12.1
16.4
30.3
StrongREJECT
5.8
15.2
3.2
28.4
7.1
38.9
HarmBench
11.5
15.8
7.9
41.5
13.2
58.7
JailbreakBench
8.3
18.6
4.1
36.2
9.8
11.4
Average
10.0
17.0
5.9
29.6
11.6
34.8
Appendix
Table 9: Transfer ASR (%) to closed-source models.
Transform
Parameter
Baseline
Ours
None
original
61.0 ± 4.9
92.0 ± 2.7
JPEG
Q=90
5.0 ± 2.2
6.0 ± 2.4
Q=50
6.0 ± 2.4
6.0 ± 2.4
Blur
3 × 3
8.0 ± 2.7
9.0 ± 2.9
5 × 5
2.0 ± 1.4
3.0 ± 1.7
Resize
0.9 ×
7.0 ± 2.6
10.0 ± 3.0
Appendix
Table 10: Transformation robustness on Qwen-VL (JailbreakBench). ASR is reported as mean ± std using the main ASR column. Bold indicates the higher ASR in each row.
Figure 6: Adversarial image examples. Top row: original image and adversarial versions at different ϵ budgets. Bottom row: perturbations magnified 10 × for visibility. At ϵ =16/255, perturbations are nearly imperceptible (SSIM=0.990).
ϵ
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
L ∞
L 2
8/255
0.998
34.2
9.0
4.97
16/255
0.990
28.2
17.0
9.92
16/255(VAE)
0.990
28.2
17.0
9.61
32/255
0.963
22.5
33.0
19.2
32/255(VAE)
0.963
22.7
33.0
19.1
Appendix
Table 11: Perceptual quality of adversarial images.
Defense
ASR ↓
Δ ASR
Latency
None (Baseline)
88.0%
–
1.00 ×
Monitoring ( τ=0.15 )
88.0% ∗
0.0%
1.01 ×
Steering ( b=0.5 )
76.0%
− 12.0%
0.94 ×
Steering ( b=1.0 )
84.0%
− 4.0%
0.83 ×
Steering ( b=2.0 )
26.0%
− 62.0%
≈ 1.0 × †
Appendix
Table 12: Defense effectiveness on Qwen-VL. ∗ Monitoring detects but does not prevent attacks; ASR reflects successful jailbreaks before filtering. † Steering with high bias reduces output length, affecting latency measurement.
The visual modality of vision-language models (VLMs) is an underexplored attack surface for bypassing safety alignment. We introduce four jailbreak attacks exploiting the vision component: (1) encoding harmful instructions as visual symbol sequences with a decoding legend, (2) replacing harmful objects with benign substitutes (e.g., bomb -> banana) then prompting for harmful actions using the substitute term, (3) replacing harmful text in images (e.g., on book covers) with benign words while visual context preserves the original meaning, and (4) visual analogy puzzles whose solution requires inferring a prohibited concept. Evaluating across six frontier VLMs, our visual attacks bypass safety alignment and expose a cross-modality alignment gap: text-based safety training does not automatically generalize to harmful intent conveyed visually. For example, our visual cipher achieves 40.9% attack success on Claude-Haiku-4.5 versus 10.7% for an equivalent textual cipher. To further our insight into the attack mechanism, we present preliminary interpretability and mitigation results. These findings highlight that robust VLM alignment requires treating vision as a first-class target for safety post-training.
Aharon Azulay, Jan Dubiński, Zhuoyun Li +2
Independent · NASK National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland · Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland +3
Multi-turn jailbreak attacks have proven effective against text-only large language models (LLMs), where malicious content is gradually introduced to bypass safety alignment. However, effectively extending such attacks to large vision-language models (LVLMs) remains underexplored. In this paper, we find that naively incorporating visual inputs can make multi-turn jailbreaks easier to defend against; for example, overly malicious visual content will easily trigger the defense mechanism in safety-aligned LVLMs, resulting in more conservative responses. Based on this finding, we propose multi-turn adaptive prompting attack (MAPA) that 1) at each turn, alternates text-vision attack actions to elicit the most malicious response; and 2) across turns, adjusts the attack trajectory through iterative back-and-forth refinement to gradually amplify response maliciousness. This two-level design enables MAPA to consistently outperform state-of-the-art methods, improving attack success rates by 15-30% on recent benchmarks against LLaVA-v1.6-Mistral-7B, Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct, Llama-3.2-Vision-11B-Instruct and GPT-4o-mini. Our code is available at: https://github.com/thomaschoi143/MAPA.
In Chong Choi, Jiacheng Zhang, Feng Liu +1
The University of Melbourne · The University of Adelaide
Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have demonstrated their incredible capability in visual question answering. However, this rich visual interaction also makes LVLMs vulnerable to adversarial examples. In this paper, we formulate a novel and practical targeted attack scenario that the adversary knows only the vision encoder of the victim LVLM, without the knowledge of its prompts and its underlying large language model. This practical setting poses challenges to the cross-prompt and cross-model transferability of targeted adversarial attack, which aims to confuse the LVLM to output a response that is semantically similar to the attacker's chosen target text. To this end, we propose an instruction-tuned targeted attack (dubbed InstructTA) to deliver the targeted adversarial attack on LVLMs with high transferability. Initially, we utilize a public text-to-image generative model to reverse the target response into a target image, and employ GPT-4 to infer a reasonable instruction p′ from the target response. We then form a local surrogate model (sharing the same vision encoder with the victim LVLM) to extract instruction-aware features of an adversarial image example and the target image, and minimize the distance between these two features to optimize the adversarial example. To further improve the transferability with instruction tuning, we augment the instruction p′ with instructions paraphrased from GPT-4. Extensive experiments on 6 victim LVLMs demonstrate the superiority of our proposed method in targeted attack performance and transferability. In particular, InstructTA achieves an attack success rate of 51.9% on BLIP-2, outperforming the strongest baseline by 10.5%, and consistently yields the highest attack success rates across all evaluated models. The code is available at https://github.com/xunguangwang/InstructTA.
Xunguang Wang, Pingchuan Ma, Zhenlan Ji +3
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China