Nudge the Judge: Uncovering Program Decision Hijacking in Real-World Jev Applications
Organizations: Key Laboratory of Trustworthy Distributed Computing and Service (MoE), Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Zhongguancun Laboratory · Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Abstract
System One models such as Jev change how software makes decisions by mapping open-ended semantic contexts into structured judgments that directly drive program execution. However, this paradigm introduces a new security risk, which we term Jev Program Decision Hijacking (JPDH): attacker-controlled contexts can redirect program decisions through schema-valid Jev judgments. Existing evaluations focus primarily on model-level attacks or predefined injection channels, leaving attack reachability and downstream security consequences in real-world Jev applications underexplored. In this paper, we present JevProbe, the first automated framework to evaluate JPDH by tracing adversarial influence from reachable context surfaces through program-consumed decisions to downstream security consequences in real-world Jev applications. Our key insight is that application logic maps diverse Jev judgments to observable decisions, enabling systematic, program-grounded attack evaluation. Across 228 popular real-world Jev applications and 2,273 test cases, 81.5% exhibit decision flips, of which 98.6% lead to potential downstream security impacts. Compared with the strongest adapted baseline, JevProbe improves macro-average Decision Flip Rate (DFR) by 50.4 percentage points, while existing defenses offer limited protection. We further construct JevProbeBench to support systematic evaluation of JPDH in real-world Jev applications. We have responsibly disclosed our findings to Jev application maintainers, pending their responses. The source code of JevProbe and the JevProbeBench dataset are publicly available on GitHub (https://github.com/xiaoxiaohg8d/JevProbe-).
Figures & tables
| GitHub Stars | Inspected | Flagged | Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10,000 | 12 | 8 | 66.7 |
| 5,000–9,999 | 7 | 5 | 71.4 |
| 1,000–4,999 | 24 | 13 | 54.2 |
| 500–999 | 37 | 15 | 40.5 |
| 100–499 | 155 | 95 | 61.3 |
| 100 | 121 | 92 | 76.0 |
| GitHub Stars | Apps | Cases | Flips | DFR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10,000 | 8 | 80 | 78 | 97.5 |
| 5,000–9,999 | 5 | 50 | 44 | 88.0 |
| 1,000–4,999 | 13 | 130 | 108 | 83.1 |
| 500–999 | 15 | 150 | 120 | 80.0 |
| 100–499 | 95 | 947 | 763 | 80.6 |
| 100 | 92 | 916 | 740 | 80.8 |
| Consequence Category | Cases (%) | Apps |
|---|---|---|
| Information Contamination | 1,690 (92.5) | 213 |
| Targeted Validation Manipulation | 58 (3.2) | 10 |
| Content / Data Integrity | 57 (3.1) | 11 |
| Authorization / Access Control | 5 (0.3) | 1 |
| Financial / Trading Decisions | 3 (0.2) | 1 |
| Other | 14 (0.8) | 4 |
| Framework | DFR | Apps w/ |
|---|---|---|
| (%) | Flips | |
| JevProbe (Ours) | 79.8 | 10/10 |
| ASB Zhang et al. (2025a) | 29.4 | 3/10 |
| AgentDojo Debenedetti et al. (2024) | 23.6 | 3/10 |
| PIArena Geng et al. (2026) | 10.0 | 1/10 |
| PromptInject Perez and Ribeiro (2022) | 10.0 | 1/10 |
| Defense | DFR (%) | (pp) |
|---|---|---|
| No Defense | 78.7 | – |
| Paraphrase Jain et al. (2023) | 79.8 | |
| Spotlighting-Datamarking Hines et al. (2024) | 77.0 | |
| Retokenization (adapted) Jain et al. (2023) | 76.0 | |
| Self-Consistency ( ) Wang et al. (2022) | 77.6 | |
| Self-Reminder Xie et al. (2023) | 74.3 |
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Strategy | Mechanism |
|---|---|
| Instruction-based | |
| Explicit Instruction | Embeds an explicit instruction intended to influence the Jev judgment. |
| Authority and Verification | |
| Forged Approval | Presents attacker-controlled content as an approval or authorization record. |
| Scenario-specific Approval | Constructs an approval or endorsement consistent with the application scenario. |
| Authority Framing | Frames attacker-controlled content as originating from an authoritative source. |
| Consequence Category | Classification Criterion | Characteristic Manifestation |
|---|---|---|
| Information Contamination | A manipulated judgment improperly suppresses legitimate, decision-relevant information or admits untrusted information into downstream processing, compromising subsequent decisions. | Suppressed risk alerts or critical reports; untrusted information admitted into downstream decision-making. |
| Targeted Validation Manipulation | An application-specific validation, screening, or security check produces a manipulated decision that changes its intended outcome. | Incorrect injection screening, sensitive-data detection, or task-validation decisions. |
| Content / Data Integrity | A manipulated judgment compromises the correctness, classification, selection, ordering, or retention of content already admitted for processing. | Incorrect content classification, ranking, selection, or context retention. |
| Authorization / Access Control | A manipulated decision changes authorization, permission enforcement, or access to privileged application functionality. | Incorrect authorization decisions, access routing, or privileged-agent selection. |
| Financial / Trading Decisions | A manipulated judgment changes financial, trading, or risk-control decisions under otherwise unchanged application facts. | Incorrect investment ratings, trading signals, risk assessments, or decision thresholds. |
| Other | The case exhibits an application-specific adverse decision or behavioral outcome that does not match the categories above. | Other decision-integrity or application-specific consequences. |
| Statistic | Count |
|---|---|
| Applications | 228 |
| Benchmark cases | 2,273 |
| Confirmed decision flips | 1,853 |
| Unsafe outcomes | 1,827 |
| Component | Contents | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Application Provenance | Application identifier and source-code revision | Identifies the exact application state associated with the case. |
| Application Scenario | Scenario identifier and decision context | Describes the application-specific setting in which the Jev judgment is used. |
| Context Surface | Attacker-controlled source and controllable field | Specifies which external context can be modified and reaches the target Jev judgment. |
| Benign Context | Original external context before manipulation | Provides the baseline input for paired execution. |
| Manipulated Context | Context after application-aware manipulation, together with its strategy category | Represents the adversarial variant evaluated against the same application scenario. |
| Decision Semantics | Relevant Jev judgment fields and their program-consumption contract | Captures how structured model outputs are converted into program decisions, including branches, categorical mappings, or numerical thresholds. |
| Application | JevProbe (Ours) | AgentDojo | ASB | PIArena | PromptInject |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TradingAgents (109.6k) | 80% | 80% | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| LiteLLM (60.1k) | 5% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Claude-Code-Templates (32.3k) | 89% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Laya (30.1k) | 94% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 100% |
| CUA (27.9k) | 89% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Opik (22.3k) | 89% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Jev | Open-Source LLMs | Closed-Source LLMs | ||||||||
| Application | Qwen2.5 32B | Qwen2.5 7B | Gemma3 27B | Gemma3 4B | Llama3.3 70B | Llama3.1 8B | Llama3.2 3B | GPT-5.6-Sol | Gemini-3.8-Flash | |
| TradingAgents (109.6k) | 80 | 60 | 65 | 65 | 55 | 55 | 50 | 50 | 70 | 70 |
| LiteLLM (60.1k) | 5 | 5 | 55 | 5 | 45 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 30 |
| Claude-Code-Templates (32.3k) | 89 | 72 | 67 | 67 | 61 | 67 | 72 | 56 | 61 | 28 |
| Laya (30.1k) | 94 | 82 | 76 | 82 | 53 | 71 | 71 | 71 | 71 | 59 |
| CUA (27.9k) | 89 | 72 | 78 | 72 | 56 | 78 | 61 | 67 | 67 | 44 |
| Pattern | Application | Judgment Changes | Program-Level Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Single | TradingAgents ( 109.6k stars ) | Confidence: | Trust gate: ( ) |
| (b) Sequential | fast-jev-compaction ( 7.3k stars ) | KeepCall: KeepResult: | Tool-call retention: ( ) |
| (c) Joint | Laya ( 30.1k stars ) | Class: positive negative Confidence: | Classification changes while the confidence gate switches from pass to reject |
| (d) Feedback | LiteLLM ( 60.1k stars ) | Relevance: | Context blanking: ( ) |
Software Security
Software security studies how to find, prevent, validate, and repair vulnerabilities in code, systems, dependencies, and software supply chains.
See all 95 papers