UNSEEN: A Cross-Stack LLM Unlearning Defense against AR-LLM Social Engineering Attacks

The emerging threat of AR-LLM-based Social Engineering (AR-LLM-SE) attacks (e.g. SEAR) poses a significant risk to real-world social interactions. In such an attack, a malicious actor uses Augmented Reality (AR) glasses to capture a target visual and vocal data. A Large Language Model (LLM) then analyzes this data to identify the individual and generate a detailed social profile. Subsequently, LLM-powered agents employ social engineering strategies, providing real-time conversation suggestions, to gain the target trust and ultimately execute phishing or other malicious acts. Despite its potential, the practical application of AR-LLM-SE faces two major bottlenecks, (1) Cold-start personalization, Current Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) methods introduce critical delays in the earliest turns, slowing initial profile formation and disrupting real-time interaction, (2) Static Attack Strategies, Existing approaches rely on fixed-stage, handcrafted social engineering tactics that lack foundation in established psychological theory. To address these limitations, we propose PhySE, a novel framework with two core innovations, (1) VLM-Based SocialContext Training, To eliminate profiling delays, we efficiently pre-train a Visual Language Model (VLM) with social-context data, enabling rapid, on-the-fly profile generation, (2) Adaptive Psychological Agent, We introduce a psychological LLM that dynamically deploys distinct classes of psychological strategies based on target response, moving beyond static, handcrafted scripts. We evaluated PhySE through an IRB-approved user study with 60 participants, collecting a novel dataset of 360 annotated conversations across diverse social scenarios.

Generative AI makes social-engineering attacks more fluent, adaptive, and scalable, increasing the need for LLM-based de- fenders that can protect users during ongoing interactions. We ask whether such defenders identify the structural source of risk or merely react to surface cues. We formalize trust-chain localization: identifying whether an interaction fails at actor authority, asset control, verification sufficiency, or transaction path. We construct a controlled 300-case online-housing corpus spanning 20 scenario families, legitimate cases, four structural failure modes, and three surface conditions. Five defender models are evaluated on the same corpus in state- ful turn-by-turn and one-shot static settings, yielding 1,500 model-case evaluations per protocol and 3,000 in total. No model produced explicit unsafe compliance, yet defensive effectiveness varied sharply: intervention rates ranged from 0% to 96.3%. Protective action and correct structural localization were frequently decoupled, with models sometimes intervening while identifying the wrong trust component or recognizing a structural failure without taking protective action. Asset-control failures were a major localization bottleneck, surface sensitivity varied across models, and live-static differences were model-dependent. These findings show that safe-looking behavior alone is insufficient; live scam resistance must separately measure intervention, timing, structural localization, and false-positive behavior.

Persistent memory in LLM agents creates an attack surface that production safety classifiers do not observe: the payload enters via RAG retrieval and persists across sessions via tool-mediated memory. We evaluate six defenses across four architectural layers against delayed-trigger attacks on nine open-source models (5,040 runs, N=40 per condition). Five of six defenses fail: input-level filters never see the payload (it enters via RAG, not user input); retrieval-level classifiers observe it but cannot distinguish compliance-framed injection from legitimate policy; instruction-level hardening is overridden by the stored rule's compliance framing. Only tool-gating at the memory layer (Memory Sandbox) reduces ASR to 0% for eight of nine models, with zero utility cost. A reasoning model inverts this defense via goal-directed RAG fallback, a mechanism that replicates cross-family on Bedrock. A reasoning-mode ablation reveals a double dissociation: no single sandbox implementation is safe across both reasoning and non-reasoning model classes. We resolve this with a content-layer proof-of-concept (RATG), validated on non-reasoning models. A loaded-corpus frontier evaluation (21 models, 3 providers, N=40) overturns an initial empty-corpus screen showing 0/210 exfiltrations: that was a threat-model artifact, not model safety. Under realistic conditions, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview exfiltrates at 95% ASR, GPT-5.1 regresses to 22.5% relative to GPT-5 (5%), and Anthropic blocks at the injection layer (0-17.5% storage, 0% ASR). Nearly all OpenAI and Gemini models store the rule at 100% regardless of execution resistance, creating supply-chain risk in shared-memory deployments. Defense effectiveness is determined by architectural layer and reasoning capability, not classifier quality.