A self-check defense asks the target model to assess a request before answering it; SAGE, the strongest published instance, reports an average 99% defense success rate. We show it can be breached by composing two attacks that are individually harmless against it: an established code-completion encoding and an established best-of-N search, neither of which exceeds 4.7% of behaviors alone. Composed, with the search budget spent on the encoding, they reach 67/22/15% across three open targets, and the effect persists on a 70B target. We then explain the composition rather than only reporting it. First, a self-check defense borrows its strength from the target: SAGE does not detect the attack, it asks the model to, and the four targets convert that request into an explicit refusal between 32% and 97% of the time, which orders the spread in defended coverage even though undefended reach is near-identical. Second, which attack survives is decided by the type of defense, and it inverts: against transform defenses the code encoding retains far more of its undefended reach than the character search, while against gate defenses the ordering flips. We account for this with the number of independent probes an attack delivers to a defense's decision boundary. Finally, we report a validity defect we found and repaired in our own pipeline, a deterministic attack under greedy decoding has no best-of-N variation channel at all, and give the one-line diagnostic that detects it. All claims rest on 310,000 generations scored by a human-validated judge.
Safety classifiers ("guards") are the dominant black-box defense for vision-language models, yet a guard judges an input's surface form, not its meaning: a harmful request re-encoded as set theory, formal logic, a classical language, code, or text rendered inside an image slips past a guard that would block it in plain language - the decode gap. The standard fix is a preprocessor that recovers image content and decodes the encoding before the guard. We build one and evaluate it against an ensemble of eleven published encoding attacks, counting a behavior as broken if any attack succeeds. That metric separates two mechanisms such defenses conflate. Restoring a view the guard never had improves it on both axes at once: it blocks far more attacks, and, measured on a category-balanced benign set, it blocks fewer benign requests, because restating a request normalizes the borderline phrasing a classifier over-flags. It still does not make the system safer: against an attacker free to choose among eleven encodings, closing one channel relocates the success rather than removing it, and no ensemble contrast survives multiple-comparison correction. What does lower ensemble attack success is re-screening the recovered pre-decode surface, and that step is where the entire benign cost falls. The safety-utility trade-off is therefore not a property of recovery; it is localized to one step. Across the full guard x target x condition factorial, no configuration reaches an ensemble attack-success rate at or below 40% while holding benign over-refusal under 70%. The per-attack averages usually reported understate the attacker roughly fourfold, which is why this frontier is easy to miss. Composing across defense families is the one lever that moved the safety axis, beating every configuration we measured, and still landing far outside any deployable refusal budget.
Thompson's "Reflections on Trusting Trust" showed that a compiler can be poisoned to reinsert its own backdoor, so that even recompiling clean source reproduces the Trojan. Today, substantial coding work is done by AI coding agents -- and increasingly, those agents generate new versions of themselves. We reconsider Thompson's attack when the "compiler" is a self-modifying coding agent. Can an adversary supply poisoned benchmarks to the agent's self-evaluation and self-improvement process to induce future versions of the agent to write vulnerable code on clean, held-out tasks? We instantiate this attack against three recently proposed self-modifying coding agents: the Darwin Gödel Machine (with our experimental modifications), the Self-Improving Coding Agent, and Hyperagents (both substantively unmodified). We demonstrate successful proofs-of-concept: for example, with Hyperagents powered by Sonnet 4.5, our poisoned benchmark leads the agent to self-evolve instructions that disable HTTPS certificate validation on neutral URL-fetching tasks. From our experiments, we distill properties of the vulnerability, benchmark, model, and agent scaffolding that are sufficient to enable a benchmark poisoning attack. Moreover, we show that contamination often persists even when a poisoned agent is subsequently evolved against clean benchmarks. We discuss defensive directions and argue that self-modifying coding agents must be designed to be more resilient to such attacks.
We measure the rate at which code RL environments accept incorrect solutions as correct. On a 49-task sample of SWE-bench Verified, 28.5% of tasks have test suites weak enough that a Docker-verified incorrect patch passes them. On 20 R2E-Gym tasks across 6 repositories, the same pipeline at single-shot exploit generation yields 25.0%. A random-effects meta-analysis over 134 frontier model submissions to SWE-bench Verified finds, within the same human-rated difficulty stratum, model Pass@1 is +14.14 percentage points higher on flagged-hackable tasks than on robust ones (95% CI [+11.80, +16.48]; one-sided p < 10^-6; I^2 = 0%; 123 of 134 models positive). We then describe a procedure for hardening the broken tasks. An inline LLM judge with a Docker gold-sanity gate runs each generated test against the gold solution before the judge is consulted. On the 11 broken tasks in the audit, the gate flags 65 of 105 decisive LLM-generated tests as failing on the gold patch itself, a 61.9% per-augmentation defect rate the LLM judge alone misses. With diversity-biased retry, the loop converges 9 of 11 tasks to a gated upgrade.