If you're waiting for a sign... that might not be it! Mitigating Trust Boundary Confusion from Visual Injections on Vision-Language Agentic Systems

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are deployed through pipelines that end users cannot audit, and a poisoned VLA can behave normally on clean observations while a small visual trigger redirects a long-horizon robot policy before any failure becomes observable. Existing vision or language defenses rarely explain what a triggered VLA representation looks like or how to recover behavior without retraining. We study this gap through two independently proposed VLA attacks from groups with distinct injection strategies, BadVLA and INFUSE; the latter persists after downstream clean adaptation. Across the evaluated poisoned models, we identify a recurring internal mechanism: a \emph{compact causal footprint}, namely a small visual support that is attention-seeded, spatially compact, and \emph{causal} in a precise sense -- masking it returns a clean-calibrated evidence-evolution score to the normal operating region. This footprint motivates TrustVLA, a mechanism-guided inference-time defense that adapts the Dirichlet evidence framework from trusted classification to monitor per-token, per-layer epistemic uncertainty in VLA policies. With only a small clean calibration set, TrustVLA (i)~detects abnormal evidence evolution, (ii)~localizes the compact support by counterfactual mechanism-score drop, and (iii)~recovers the observation by localized inpainting. Across OpenVLA/LIBERO and $π_{0.5}$ transfer evaluations, TrustVLA reduces attack success while preserving clean-task performance, providing a retraining-free, mechanism-guided defense for visual-triggered VLA backdoors.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are emerging as a unified substrate for embodied intelligence. This shift raises a new class of safety challenges, stemming from the embodied nature of VLA systems, including irreversible physical consequences, a multimodal attack surface across vision, language, and state, real-time latency constraints on defense, error propagation over long-horizon trajectories, and vulnerabilities in the data supply chain. Yet the literature remains fragmented across robotic learning, adversarial machine learning, AI alignment, and autonomous systems safety. This survey provides a unified and up-to-date overview of safety in Vision-Language-Action models. We organize the field along two parallel timing axes, attack timing (training-time vs. inference-time and defense timing (training-time vs. inference-time, linking each class of threat to the stage at which it can be mitigated. We first define the scope of VLA safety, distinguishing it from text-only LLM safety and classical robotic safety, and review the foundations of VLA models, including architectures, training paradigms, and inference mechanisms. We then examine the literature through four lenses: Attacks, Defenses, Evaluation, and Deployment. We survey training-time threats such as data poisoning and backdoors, as well as inference-time attacks including adversarial patches, cross-modal perturbations, semantic jailbreaks, and freezing attacks. We review training-time and runtime defenses, analyze existing benchmarks and metrics, and discuss safety challenges across six deployment domains. Finally, we highlight key open problems, including certified robustness for embodied trajectories, physically realizable defenses, safety-aware training, unified runtime safety architectures, and standardized evaluation.

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.