Defending Against Malicious Finetuning by Scaling Train-time Adversarial Attacks

Recent defenses for safeguarding open-weight large language models (LLMs) are intended to prevent adversarial usage. Underlying these defenses is an assumption that new harmful behavior is learned through fine-tuning rather than elicited by jailbreaking the model. Yet, pretrained LLMs already encode substantial harmful knowledge across many domains, which raises an important question: can an adversary jailbreak safeguarded models, to achieve harmful usage without fine-tuning at all? In this paper, we show that open-weight safeguards are susceptible to simpler strategies that, despite being well known, have not been systematically evaluated against these safeguards. Specifically, we evaluate two low-cost attacks--abliteration and prefilling--that do not rely on gradient-based optimization. Across three harmfulness evaluation benchmarks (BeaverTails, HarmBench, and AdvBench), these attacks increase attack success rates against safeguarded open-weight models from below 10% to a range of 16%-96%. To mitigate this vulnerability, we introduce abliteration-resistant tuning (ART), which incorporates an abliteration-based objective into training. ART can be layered onto existing defenses and reduces the success rates of abliteration, prefilling, and their combination by 10%-20%. These findings indicate that the attack surface for open-weight models is broader than previously characterized, and that evaluations of safeguarding defenses should incorporate a more diverse set of attack strategies beyond adversarial fine-tuning.

Large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to adversarial prompting despite advances in alignment and safety, often exhibiting harmful behaviors under novel attack strategies. While adversarial training can improve robustness, existing approaches are computationally expensive and difficult to scale. Recent continuous adversarial training methods, such as Continuous adversarial training (CAT) and Continuous Adversarial Preference Optimization (CAPO), address this challenge by leveraging gradient-based perturbations in the embedding space, enabling more efficient and expressive attacks. Building on this paradigm, we propose WARDEN, a distributionally robust adversarial training framework for LLMs that dynamically reweights adversarial examples through an f -divergence ambiguity set around the empirical training distribution. Our method optimizes the worst-case adversarial loss within a divergence ball around the empirical data distribution, automatically emphasizing harder adversarial examples. Using the convex dual formulation, the objective reduces to a log-sum-exp form under the KL divergence, with a dynamical parameter controlling the strength of reweighting. This study leads to a new class of information-theoretic objectives that significantly reduce attack success rates while maintaining model utility. Across multiple LLMs and attack settings, WARDEN substantially reduces attack success rates with computational and utility costs comparable to CAT-, CAPO-, and MixAT-based baselines, making it a practical approach for scalable robust alignment.

Finetuning open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs) is standard practice for achieving task-specific performance improvements. Until now, finetuning has been regarded as a controlled and secure process in which training on benign datasets leads to predictable behaviors. In this paper, we demonstrate, for the first time, that an adversary can create compromised LLMs that are performant and benign, yet exhibit adversarial behaviors once finetuned by downstream users. To this end, we propose an attack, FAB (Finetuning-activated Adversarial Behaviors), which compromises an LLM via meta-learning techniques that simulate downstream finetuning, explicitly optimizing for the emergence of adversarial behaviors in the finetuned models. At the same time, the compromised LLM is regularized to retain general capabilities and to exhibit no adversarial behaviors prior to finetuning. As a result, when users finetune (e.g., instruction-tuning, distillation, DPO) the seemingly benign model on their own datasets, they unknowingly trigger its dormant adversarial behavior. We experimentally demonstrate the effectiveness of FAB across multiple LLMs and three commonly considered target behaviors: unsolicited advertising, jailbreakability, and over-refusal. We show that FAB-triggers are robust to various finetuning choices made by the user (e.g., dataset, number of steps, scheduler, post-training algorithm). Our findings challenge prevailing assumptions on the security of finetuning, revealing a critical attack vector.