CASCADE Against Jailbreaks: Combination Across Stages with Controlled Attack-Defense Evaluation

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success but remain highly susceptible to jailbreak attacks, in which adversarial prompts coerce models into generating harmful, unethical, or policy-violating outputs. Such attacks pose real-world risks, eroding safety, trust, and regulatory compliance in high-stakes applications. Although a variety of attack and defense methods have been proposed, existing evaluation practices are inadequate, often relying on narrow metrics like attack success rate that fail to capture the multidimensional nature of LLM security. In this paper, we present a systematic taxonomy of jailbreak attacks and defenses and introduce Security Cube, a unified, multi-dimensional framework for comprehensive evaluation of these techniques. We provide detailed comparison tables of existing attacks and defenses, highlighting key insights and open challenges across the literature. Leveraging Security Cube, we conduct benchmark studies on 13 representative attacks and 5 defenses, establishing a clear view of the current landscape encompassing jailbreak attacks, defenses, automated judges, and LLM vulnerabilities. Based on these evaluations, we distill critical findings, identify unresolved problems, and outline promising research directions for enhancing LLM robustness against jailbreak attacks. Our analysis aims to pave the way towards more robust, interpretable, and trustworthy LLM systems. Our code is available at Code.

Jailbreak defenses are essential for protecting large language models (LLMs), but they can also introduce secondary costs that weaken model utility. We present a systematic study of these defense trade-offs along three dimensions: performance impact, over-refusal on benign inputs, and inference cost. Rather than treating defenses as a single class, we organize them by operational strategy and examine how different strategies correlate with different side-effect profiles. Across state-of-the-art defense methods, widely used benchmark datasets, and representative open-source LLMs, we find that defenses rarely improve downstream capability, but instead vary in how they trade safety gains against usability and efficiency. In particular, rule-based defenses best preserve task performance, highly conservative self-reflective defenses often increase over-refusal, and multi-round defenses incur the largest runtime overhead. These results provide both a benchmark for evaluating defense side effects and practical guidance for selecting defenses under deployment constraints.

Locally deployed Large Language Models (LLMs) via inference engines such as Ollama run without the moderation and abuse detection present in API-served models. Therefore, the safety of LLMs depends on the defense mechanisms used, and their effectiveness depends on the assumptions on which they were designed. This paper does an audit of defense mechanisms under jailbreak attacks on locally deployed models. Some defenses provide formal guarantees (SmoothLLM, Erase-and-Check, Sequential Monitors), while others rely on empirical detection results (Semantic Smoothing, Self-Denoised Smoothing, Perplexity Filtering). Instead of merely observing that defenses fail, we trace each failure back to the specific assumption: for every defense, we extract the condition it relies on, derive the empirical pattern a violation should produce, and test that prediction on six open-weight models (14B to 35B parameters) with a corpus of 100 jailbreak prompts taken from more than 40 public sources, totalling 13,800 evaluation records.