Cross-Session Decomposition Attacks: Scaling Risk and Intent-Aligned Retrieval Defense

LLM-based Agents are becoming increasingly capable and widely deployed, creating growing incentives for adversarial misuse in the real-world. A key emerging threat is Decomposition Attacks \cite{glukhov2024breach, jones2024adversaries} in which a harmful task is broken into simpler, benign subtasks that evade safety mechanisms when executed separately but cumulatively fulfill the malicious intent. Although recent benchmarks assess agent safety in multi-turn and multi-tool-use settings, they do not explicitly capture this form of decompositional misuse and may not represent realistic adversarial execution flows. To this end, we introduce DeCompBench, a benchmark designed specifically to evaluate agentic safety under decomposition attacks. DeCompBench is created with a decomposition-by-design principle using a graphical framework and enables harmful task decomposition into individually benign and executable subtasks with realistic workflows. Our experiments using a custom decomposer show that state-of-the-art agents exhibit high refusal rates on monolithic harmful tasks, but significantly lower refusal rates on their decomposed variants, while often inadvertently fulfilling the adversarial objectives. These findings underscore the need for safety evaluations against decomposition attacks and corresponding defenses. Our dataset is publicly available and can be found at https://huggingface.co/datasets/decompositionbench/DeCompBench.

Recent work has shown that large language models (LLMs) can be vulnerable to jailbreak attacks in which harmful intent is obscured through composition with benign tasks. A harmful request refused in isolation may elicit a different response when embedded within a larger, seemingly benign query. We study these compositional intent-hiding jailbreaks from an information-theoretic perspective. Our formulation associates each task with an estimated probability of being judged harmful: the average over the full task collection defines the prior probability of harmful intent, while the average over a selected bundle containing the target defines the posterior. Selecting auxiliary tasks so that these averages agree, which we call prior-posterior matching, leaves the estimated intent unchanged even though the harmful target remains in the bundle. We study two settings that differ in whether query construction is part of the optimization. In the query-independent setting, tasks are selected without regard to how they will be expressed in the final query. We show that exact prior-posterior matching under a bundle-size constraint is computationally hard, derive an optimal water-filling solution for fractional weights, and characterize the smallest bundle satisfying a prescribed safety threshold. In the query-dependent setting, task selection and query construction are considered jointly, and intent concealment and target preservation are evaluated on the resulting query. We evaluate jailbreak effectiveness and preservation of the target behavior across bundle sizes, query generators, and several open-source models. These results show that compositional queries can elicit target behaviors beyond the direct-request baseline under the evaluated search budgets, while revealing a trade-off: as bundle size increases, response-level target preservation tends to decrease for several models.

An attacker can split a malicious goal into sub-prompts that each look benign on their own and only become harmful in combination. Existing LLM safety benchmarks evaluate prompts one at a time, or across turns of a single chat, and so do not look for a malicious signal spread across separate sessions with no shared context. We build FragBench, a benchmark drawn from 24 real-world cyber-incident campaigns, which keeps the full attack trail: the multi-fragment kill chain, the per-fragment safety-judge verdicts, sandboxed execution traces, and a matched set of benign cover sessions. FragBench splits this trail into two paired tasks: an adversarial rewriter that hardens fragments against a single-turn safety judge (FragBench Attack), and a graph-based user-level detector trained on the resulting interactions (FragBench Defense). The single-turn judge is near chance on the released corpus by construction, but four GNN variants and three classical-ML baselines all recover the cross-session feature, reaching aggregate event-level F1 = 0.88-0.96. Defending against fragmented LLM misuse therefore requires modeling the cross-session interaction graph, rather than isolated prompts. Our generator, rewriter, sandbox harness, and detector are released at https://github.com/LidaSafety/fragbench.