Be Kind, Rewrite: Benign Projections via Rewriting Defend Against LLM Data Poisoning Attacks

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed in high-stakes domains, adversaries may poison training data to implant backdoors: hidden triggers that covertly manipulate model behavior at inference time. We ask whether a defender can recover such a trigger under realistic affordances, namely white-box access to the weights and knowledge of the behavior of concern, but no training data, no trusted reference model, no knowledge of the trigger, and no certainty that the model is poisoned. To evaluate whether a defender can recover such a trigger under realistic settings, we release ToxScreen, a benchmark of roughly 800 backdoored models spanning attack objectives, trigger mechanisms, poisoning rates, model scales, and backdoor training mechanisms. We also assert that the backdoors are high-quality: they achieve high attack success rates, generalize to unseen harmful inputs, and preserve clean-task performance. Scoring recovery of the planted trigger, we find that gradient-based prompt optimization fails in recovery, whereas a token look-up that ranks candidates by attack-success rate recovers the trigger wherever the backdoor is effective. To understand this more, we study the relationship between attack behaviors and the weights of an LLM. We find a phenomenon whereby backdoors operate via different mechanistic strategies than jailbreaks, allowing defenders to filter jailbreaks. Finally, no method reliably surfaces every backdoor, but a broadly jailbreakable model is itself anomalous, a useful signal even when the exact trigger is not recovered. We release all models and evaluation code

Large language models (LLMs) suffer from degraded safety capabilities even when fine-tuned with benign datasets. However, existing methods for identifying safety-degrading samples in benign datasets suffer from high computational costs and significant noise issues. In this paper, we propose DataShield to efficiently and effectively identify potential safety-degrading samples. Our key intuition is based on the observation that benign fine-tuning increases the overall response compliance of LLMs. DataShield's key technical insight is to quantify each sample's contribution to the model's compliance behavior as its safety degradation score. DataShield consists of three core components: (1) Compliance Vector Extraction, which captures the LLM's compliance behavior tendency; (2) a novel Compliance-Aware Score (CAS), which automatically identifies the optimal safety-critical layer; and (3) Safety-degrading Sample Filtering, which quantifies the projection shift of training data along the compliance direction. Extensive experimental evaluation on Llama3-8B, Llama3.1-8B, and Qwen2.5-7B using the Alpaca and Dolly benign datasets validates our method's effectiveness in identifying high-risk and low-risk data subsets. We also observe that open-ended question answering is more likely to trigger safety degradation, and corresponding responses tend to be longer. We hope this work can provide new insights into data-centric defense methods. The source code is available at: https://github.com/ZJunBo/DataShield.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide range of tasks. However, their safety remains a critical concern due to their susceptibility to adversarial prompt-based attacks. In this paper, we present UNIATTACK, an adversarial testing framework designed from a defense-oriented perspective to systematically construct effective black-box attack prompts. Unlike prior approaches that rely on static templates or iterative model-specific tuning, UNIATTACK extracts minimal but high-impact attack features from diverse existing attacks, optimizes them via a specialized attacker LLM, and composes them into flexible templates through automated refinement process. This feature-centric construction enables one-shot attacks that generalize across multiple models and safety categories, providing a practical tool for assessing LLM robustness. Our evaluation results shows that compared to the baselines, UNIATTACK achieves an average attack success rate (ASR) improvement of 64.63%-248.82% on models deployed with multi-layered defense mechanisms and it only takes 0.03%-4.96% cost of the baselines. UNIATTACK artifact is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/UniAttack-Artifact-30F1.