Capability-Gated Language Models: Security Composes, Utility Does Not

Language model safety is typically evaluated one interaction at a time. We show that a weaker, unaligned model can split a harmful task into benign-looking subproblems, consult a stronger aligned model independently on each, and combine the answers locally. We call this attack capability laundering. Unlike a jailbreak, no single response is a harmful task. We measure consultation-aided uplift using tasks that a raw frontier model solves, the aligned frontier refuses, and the unassisted orchestrator fails. We evaluate GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, and Grok-4.3 as consultants to four local orchestrators on CyBench, BountyBench, and harmful CBRN requests. On CyBench, Gemma-4-31B recovers 8/14 candidates with GPT-5.5 and 7/9 with Opus, compared with 2/21 and 4/15 for Gemma-4-12B. On BountyBench, Gemma-4-31B recovers 3/9 and 2/3 candidates, while Muse-Glimmer-30B recovers none of 22 and 13. For CBRN, we measure uplift across eight steps of a hypothetical bioweapon attack chain and find that consultation raises Gemma-4-31B's mean rubric score from 62.3 to 83.1 on a 100-point rubric scale. These results expose a gap in current defenses: refusing a harmful task does not prevent frontier capabilities from being transferred and composed across many individually permitted interactions.

Large language model safeguards decide whether to answer before seeing how an answer will be used. This creates a basic problem for dual-use tasks: the same answer can help an authorized professional or an attacker, while an attacker can imitate a benign request and interaction history. We separate the capability released by the model from the evidence available about downstream use. When that evidence is copyable, we derive the exact worst-case floor on attacker assistance while preserving useful answers. The result yields a safety trilemma: Useful Capability, Reliable Safety, and Open Access cannot coexist. We then show how a trusted credential can complement existing safeguards by adding hard-to-copy information that predicts actual downstream use, and identify the stronger condition needed to eliminate the floor. Evidence from dual-use evaluations, adaptive attacks, and deployed trusted-access programs supports the practical relevance of these conditions.

Safety-aligned language models often refuse cybersecurity requests whose wording resembles misuse, even when the task is authorized and defensive. This makes security evaluation ambiguous: a failed answer may reflect missing capability or refusal-policy intervention. Ablating Safety studies alignment removal as a controlled transformation-evaluation protocol for authorized security tasks, comparing authorized-context prompting, reversible refusal-direction activation projection, representation-control projections, and LoRA-based de-alignment or task adaptation. We evaluate refusal, attempt rate, validated security success, general-capability retention, instability, and out-of-scope unsafe compliance on Security-AR, a 60-prompt suite of authorized security, benign general, and non-operational spillover probes. The reported runs include a four-model projection pilot with 416 completions, a three-model Qwen2.5 LoRA extension with 1,980 held-out completions, representation and robustness sweeps, and executable secure-repair validators. Single-vector refusal projection raises mean security score only from 0.46 to 0.50 while increasing unsafe compliance from 0.10 to 0.47; rank-4 refusal-subspace projection reaches 0.51 while matching the aligned spillover rate. Task-only LoRA raises mean security score to 0.87 with general score 0.83 and unsafe compliance 0.13, while refusal-suppression with retention raises spillover to 0.27. These results support evaluating alignment removal as a utility-risk frontier, not as an uncensoring recipe, and treating compliance alone as neither competence nor safe deployment.