SafeRedirect: Defeating Internal Safety Collapse via Task-Completion Redirection in Frontier LLMs

Aligned large language models (LLMs) are expected to exhibit safety behavior based on the content of the user request: they should refuse unsafe requests and comply with safe ones. However, we show that the same request can elicit substantially different safety decisions under different traits assigned in the system prompt, a failure mode we call trait-induced safety variation. To measure this failure, we introduce refusal-based metrics: Trait-Induced Deviation measures dataset-level deviation from the no-trait baseline, while Trait-Induced Flip Rate measures whether the same request receives different safety decisions across traits. We then provide a representation-level analysis of the mechanism behind trait-induced safety shifts and find that traits perturb the model's safety representations within a low-dimensional subspace. To achieve trait-invariant safety, where safety behavior remains stable across traits, we introduce Trait-Invariant Safety Tuning (TIST), a simple yet effective self-distillation framework that aligns an LLM's trait-conditioned behavior with its no-trait behavior. Guided by our analysis, we further propose Trait-Subspace Neutralization (TraSN), an instantiation of TIST, which enforces invariance only within the identified trait subspace. Experiments show that TraSN improves trait-invariant safety and strengthens harmful-request safety while preserving general capability. Our results highlight traits as an important factor in LLM safety and robust model behavior.

LLMs are trained to refuse harmful instructions, but do they truly understand harmfulness beyond just refusing? Prior work has shown that LLMs' refusal behaviors can be mediated by a one-dimensional subspace, i.e., a refusal direction. In this work, we identify a new dimension to analyze safety mechanisms in LLMs, i.e., harmfulness, which is encoded internally as a separate concept from refusal. There exists a harmfulness direction that is distinct from the refusal direction. As causal evidence, steering along the harmfulness direction can lead LLMs to interpret harmless instructions as harmful, but steering along the refusal direction tends to elicit refusal responses directly without reversing the model's judgment on harmfulness. Furthermore, using our identified harmfulness concept, we find that certain jailbreak methods work by reducing the refusal signals without reversing the model's internal belief of harmfulness. We also find that adversarially finetuning models to accept harmful instructions has minimal impact on the model's internal belief of harmfulness. These insights lead to a practical safety application: The model's latent harmfulness representation can serve as an intrinsic safeguard (Latent Guard) for detecting unsafe inputs and reducing over-refusals that is robust to finetuning attacks. For instance, our Latent Guard achieves performance comparable to or better than Llama Guard 3 8B, a dedicated finetuned safeguard model, across different jailbreak methods. Our findings suggest that LLMs' internal understanding of harmfulness is more robust than their refusal decision to diverse input instructions, offering a new perspective to study AI safety.

Jailbreak attacks remain a critical threat to the safe deployment of large language models (LLMs). While prior work has primarily studied attacks and defenses at the prompt level, we show that this prompt-centric paradigm overlooks a structural vulnerability in stateful, function-calling environments. In such applications, developer-defined schemas, structured arguments, and untrusted tool outputs are interleaved into a single shared model context. This architecture expands the attack surface by blurring the boundary between trusted control logic and untrusted data, allowing adversarial intent to be distributed across a multi-turn execution path. We exploit this architectural flaw through SMT, a black-box attack framework based on Simulated Moderation Traces. Departing from purely prompt-based interactions, SMT constructs a multi-turn trajectory that simulates a legitimate moderation-auditing workflow. Within this trajectory, a fabricated moderation frame leverages red-team testing as a pretext to elicit harmful generations. The subsequent validation feedback treats safety refusals as execution failures, prompting refinements that gradually weaken the model's safety constraints and ultimately trigger harmful outputs. Extensive empirical evaluations on prominent commercial LLMs from five different providers across two standardized safety benchmarks show that SMT consistently achieves the highest average attack success rate and HarmScore while requiring a near-minimal number of queries, substantially outperforming existing baselines. These findings demonstrate that prompt-level sanitization alone is fundamentally insufficient for defending tool-enabled LLM systems and highlight the urgent need for context-aware validation across schemas, arguments, tool outputs, and accumulated conversation state. The code is available at https://github.com/liujlong27/SMT.