Adversarial Attacks on LLMs

Vehicle-to-everything (V2X) systems increasingly incorporate large language models (LLMs) for semantic tasks such as message summarization, operator assistance, and decision support at roadside units and edge nodes. Although these components are not part of safety-critical control loops, they introduce prompt-level attack surfaces that are not addressed by traditional V2X security mechanisms focused on authentication and message integrity. This paper presents Guarded-V2X, an inline semantic guardrail architecture for securing LLM-enabled V2X services under real-time constraints. The proposed system integrates rule-based ingress filtering, a lightweight safety classifier, policy-constrained structured generation, trusted-only retrieval, and post-decision adjudication to enforce machine-checkable safety boundaries prior to downstream execution. Guarded-V2X is evaluated using a four-stage experimental pipeline encompassing intrusion vulnerability analysis, calibration and latency benchmarking, guardrail validation, and robustness under adversarial stress. Experiments are conducted on a V2X-aligned simulated dataset derived from RSU advisories, operator messages, and annotated V2X message summaries. Results show that unguarded and prompt-only baselines retain residual vulnerability under multi-turn adversarial trials, while Guarded-V2X consistently reduces intrusion acceptance success rates and eliminates observed unsafe completions in two-turn settings, without exceeding latency budgets for V2X semantic advisory paths.

Foundation models have achieved remarkable success across diverse tasks, but they remain vulnerable. To investigate such vulnerabilities, semantic-shift jailbreaks have recently emerged as a promising attack paradigm. They bypass explicit safety mechanisms by replacing harmful terms in original harmful questions with benign alternatives and leveraging contextual information to induce the target model to reinterpret these alternatives as their corresponding harmful concepts. However, existing semantic-shift jailbreaks often achieve limited effectiveness. In this work, we reveal that this limitation arises from overlooking the semantic-shift capability of contexts. Through systematic analysis, we find that contexts exhibit substantially different abilities in inducing semantic shifts: contexts with stronger semantic-shift capabilities are more likely to guide models toward recovering harmful meanings and achieving successful jailbreaks. Based on this finding, we systematically identify and distill the characteristics of effective contexts and propose a black-box context-aware semantic-shift jailbreak framework with Iterative Context Optimization (ICO). In each iteration, ICO leverages these characteristics and feedback from the target model to optimize contexts. Extensive experiments on three datasets and eight target foundation models demonstrate that ICO consistently outperforms eight state-of-the-art baselines, achieving an average attack success rate of 74.6%.

Role-Playing Language Agents (RPLAs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes applications such as healthcare assistance, customer support, and education, where maintaining consistent personas, ethical constraints, and behavioral coherence under adversarial pressure is critical. Existing evaluation approaches rely on static benchmarks or isolated single-turn prompts that fail to capture cumulative behavioral failures emerging over extended interactions. We present a modular multi-agent platform for adversarially stress-testing RPLAs through structured, multi-turn dialogue. The system coordinates three agents: a strategy-driven Interrogator Agent that applies six progressive adversarial strategies, a Target Agent representing the RPLA under evaluation, and an automated Judging Agent that scores behavior across role fidelity, drift, ethical deviation, and consistency dimensions. Through experiments across three personas and three LLM families, we demonstrate that multi-strategy adversarial evaluation reveals failure modes invisible to single-strategy testing, reducing overall robustness scores by 0.17--0.20 points on average. Cross-model validation confirms consistent degradation patterns across Llama-3.3-70B, GPT-4o-mini, and Claude-3.5-Haiku, with Authority Challenge and Emotional Manipulation emerging as the most effective attack strategies. Automated judging achieves strong human alignment ($r = 0.82$, Fleiss' $κ= 0.71$). This work is released as an open-source platform to support AI safety and reproducible RPLA benchmarking. While the framework enables systematic discovery of failure modes, we acknowledge potential ethical risks associated with adversarial testing methodologies and emphasize responsible usage for improving AI safety.

With the rapid release of open-weight large foundation models, safety threats are shifting from black-box jailbreaks to neuron-level white-box attacks that directly identify and manipulate safety-related neurons. Existing alignment methods often investigate the safety behavior on a small number of neurons, creating fragile single point of failure with limited redundancy. To address this issue, we propose distributed safety alignment (DSA), which redundantly encodes safety capabilities across multiple computational neurons, ensuring that the model maintains its safety baseline even when critical safety neurons are disrupted. Specifically, we localize the intervention to the inputs of the down-projection layers in language-side feed-forward networks and treat each feature coordinate as the activation of an individual neuron. DSA then combines neuron activations with loss gradients to compute a direction-aware first-order Taylor score that globally identifies the neurons that contribute most to the current refusal behavior of the model. Finally, targeted disruption via deterministic masking and stochastic dropout is coupled, forcing the model to abandon narrow safety neurons and redundantly encode safety behavior across multiple compensatory neurons. Extensive experiments show that DSA substantially improves robustness against white-box neuron-level safety attacks while preserving the model's general language and multimodal utility.

With the widespread deployment of large foundation models (LFMs) in open environments, safety threats are shifting from black-box jailbreaks toward white-box attacks that directly identify and disrupt internal safety neurons or routes. However, existing safety defenses often rely on static safety units or fixed refusal pathways, leaving models highly vulnerable to targeted route-level white-box attacks. For that, we propose dynamic routing adaptive alignment (DRAA), a framework that introduces dynamic compensatory routes to preserve robust refusal behavior when the safety route is compromised. Specifically, we first identify and localize the model's safety route by contrasting internal activations between safe and unsafe calibration samples. DRAA then masks this safety route to induce causal failure cases and selectively mines the resulting defense failures, thereby constructing failure-aware preference pairs. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DRAA effectively restructures the underlying pathway dependence of model safety, substantially improving robustness against route-level white-box attacks, while preserving general utility.

Multi-agent LLM pipelines orchestrate multiple specialized language model agents into structured workflows where intermediate outputs are passed across agents to solve complex tasks. This design introduces a security gap absent in single-agent settings: once an agent accepts adversarial content, it is propagated as trusted input throughout the pipeline. We argue that this vulnerability stems from the absence of boundary verification, a security primitive that enforces explicit validation of data as it crosses inter-agent boundaries, including content, identity, execution intent, and state integrity. Without such verification, modern pipelines embed implicit trust assumptions that are not adversarially robust, giving rise to structurally distinct attack surfaces (e.g., content injection, agent impersonation, plan deviation, and memory poisoning). Leveraging annotated production traces from the GAIA and SWE-Bench benchmark, we show that these vulnerabilities arise in benign deployments and largely evade existing evaluation frameworks. We further operationalize these failure modes within a controlled multi-agent setting and evaluate them across GPT-5-mini, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Kimi K2.5 under identical pipeline configurations. The results reveal that attack success aligns with pipeline structure rather than model capability, indicating that adversarial vulnerability is fundamentally an architectural property and motivating a shift toward pipeline-level defenses.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly integrated into mainstream development platforms and daily technological workflows, typically behind moderation and safety controls. Despite these controls, preventing prompt-based policy evasion remains challenging, and adversaries continue to "jailbreak" LLMs by crafting prompts that circumvent implemented safety mechanisms. Prior work has established cipher-mediated interaction, code-embedded decryption, prompt decomposition and reconstruction, and layered custom encryption as viable attack primitives. However, reported evaluations generally collapse visible acceptance, successful recovery of the concealed request, and subsequent execution into an aggregate attack-success outcome. This leaves limited evidence about where multistage prompt-transformation attacks fail within an observable black-box interaction. This paper introduces RoguePrompt, a jailbreak pipeline that partitions a forbidden prompt and applies two nested encodings, Vigenere followed by ROT13, along with natural-language reconstruction instructions. RoguePrompt was developed and evaluated under a black-box threat model, with only API or user-interface access to the hosted models, and was tested on 313 real-world, hard-rejected prompts. Success was measured in terms of moderation bypass, instruction reconstruction, and execution when the relevant stage exceeded its automated criterion. RoguePrompt achieved average rates of 93.93% for filter bypass, 79.02% for reconstruction, and 70.18% for execution. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of layered prompt encoding while providing stage-level evidence of where multistage jailbreaks fail during moderation bypass, instruction reconstruction, and execution.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely applied in high-stakes decision-making scenarios such as corporate strategy, and users are increasingly relying on their outputs. However, the deep integration of open-source model sharing ecosystems with LLM-powered critical decision-making applications also introduces critical risks: if an attacker can manipulate the model's cognitive stance, they can indirectly influence the judgments and actions of downstream decision-makers. This paper defines such threats as decision-level hijacking. Existing attacks fail to achieve targeted cognitive manipulation without triggering prohibited content or degrading model functionality. To fill this gap, this paper reveals that Bit-Flip Attacks (BFAs) can serve as an attack vector for inducing decision-level hijacking, requiring no real-time interaction or control over the training process, and only a minimal number of weight bits need to be flipped after deployment to achieve stealthy, low-cost, and persistent cognitive manipulation. Therefore, we propose CogBias, a cognitive bias injection framework for LLMs. CogBias converts subjective preferences into optimization signals via a differentiable sentiment evaluator, uses a multi-objective loss to jointly constrain multiple dimensions, and constructs BitScout to locate critical bits, achieving targeted cognitive intervention under an ultra-sparse flip budget. Experiments on Llama-3.2-3B, Mistral-7B, and Qwen2.5-14B, as well as on the commercial recommendation and controversial factual topic scenarios, demonstrate that flipping only a small number of bits stably induces significant stance shifts on target topics, while the impact on non-target tasks and overall output distribution is limited. This work demonstrates that minute perturbations to low-level weight data suffice to undermine the high-level value alignment of LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) used as listwise rerankers in recommendation systems suffer from position bias when serializing candidate sets into prompts. We show this order sensitivity creates an exploitable attack surface: an attacker can promote a label-0 target into the top-$k$ solely by reordering candidates, without changing item content, labels, or model parameters. We introduce $\mathrm{promo}@k$ to quantify this vulnerability, measuring the fraction of label-0 targets that can be elevated into top-$k$ rankings via permutation. Evaluating across three domains (MovieLens, Amazon Books, and Amazon Fashion), $\mathrm{promo}@5$ reaches up to 0.57 at an attack budget of $R$ = 50 orderings. Furthermore, ordinary permutation stability predicts vulnerability without running the attack. While a bidirectional T5 encoder scorer reduces exposure, permutation-consistency regularization and architectural invariance effectively mitigate it. Pointwise scoring avoids the bias issue but degrades ranking quality. These results demonstrate that input candidate order in listwise LLM reranking is a security-relevant attack vector. Code and data are available at https://github.com/geoz-lab/position_bias_attack.

LLM-based agents process external content, exposing them to prompt injection and multi-turn manipulation. Most safety benchmarks evaluate defenders against fixed attack pools collected before evaluation, single-turn or multi-turn. We present a 21-scenario benchmark for \emph{adaptive multi-round attacks against memoryless LLM defenders}: an autonomous LLM attacker observes prior defender responses and pivots across rounds, while each defender response is evaluated as a fresh interaction. Holding the 21 scenarios, attackers, defenders, and structured-output scoring fixed, restricting scoring to the first attacker turn yields $0$-$1\%$ attack success rate (ASR); allowing 15 rounds of adaptive attack yields $5.4$-$14.0\%$. Pooling three frontier attacker LLMs uncovers $1.4$-$2.2\times$ as many unique successful attacks as the best single attacker, and the generated attacks have low cosine similarity ($0.02$-$0.14$) to attacks in existing benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 are tied in aggregate ($5.4\%$ each; overlapping $95\%$ CIs), but their weaknesses differ sharply: on one scenario Opus reaches $60\%$ ASR ($95\%$ CI $36$--$80\%$) while GPT-5.4 and Gemini each stay at $7\%$ (CI $1$-$30\%$; the gap is preserved in a higher-$N$ replication). $13$ of $21$ scenarios distinguish at least one defender pair, yet rankings disagree across scenarios (Kendall's $W = 0.19$). We release the benchmark -- 21 evaluation scenarios, 10 public development scenarios, the orchestrator, baseline harnesses, and a multi-attacker CLI -- plus 945 transcripts from the 3$\times$3 frontier matrix, an attack-replay dataset, and 18{,}422 gpt-oss-20b battles from an open competition's final scoring rounds.

Large language models often appear to reason reliably, yet on many questions repeated sampling yields both correct and incorrect answers, revealing an underlying fragility in how final decisions are formed. We study whether this fragility can be exploited through implicit reasoning steering: using natural-language text to bias a model toward a designated answer without explicit instructions, triggers, or direct answer cues. Our approach, Concept Chaining, generates a short connection paragraph that links question entities to a target option through one or two intermediate concepts. We then continue pretraining a victim model on these connection paragraphs and evaluate whether its answer preference shifts on the original multiple-choice questions. Our results show that indirect, natural-looking text can systematically steer model predictions while remaining substantially less inferable than direct paraphrases, which shows that reasoning brittleness is not merely an evaluation artifact: it creates a practical channel through which latent biases can be amplified by ordinary-looking text to covertly redirect model decisions.

Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially Generative AI (GenAI), adoption has increased in industries significantly in recent years. However, the use of these models may also expose systems to new forms of cyberattacks by different malicious actors -- adversarial prompt attack (APA) being one of the most prominent examples of such threats. This paper presents the implementation of an Adversarial Prompting Framework (APF) for a comprehensive assessment of AI safety. The framework systematically evaluates the resilience of the AI model through the generation of structured adversarial prompts at multiple sophistication levels, from direct harmful requests to advanced encoding-based attacks. Our implementation demonstrates the practical application of this methodology in enterprise environments, providing automated testing capabilities with quantitative security assessment metrics. The results indicate significant variations in the model vulnerabilities across different attack vectors, with encoded prompts presenting the highest success rates in bypassing safety mechanisms.

Safety evaluation of large language models (LLMs) relies largely on single-turn attack datasets and single-judge scoring, underestimating risk from adaptive multi-turn adversaries and reporting a single success rate that does not separate partially actionable outputs from those carrying complete operational detail. We propose AMT-X (Adaptive Multi-Turn Exploitation), a phase-structured multi-turn red-teaming framework. Unlike prior multi-turn attacks that rely on ad hoc escalation or free-form per-goal plans, AMT-X casts the attack as an explicit, reproducible multi-phase state machine driven by semantic signals from the victim, and replaces single-judge scoring with a multi-role jury whose phase-conditioned checklists gate success on actionable harm. Across six frontier victim models (queried under their default safety alignment, without added moderation layers) and seven Moderation sub-categories, AMT-X attains overall attack success rates of 97.6-100% under a lenient score threshold, but 66.7-78.6% under a stricter gate requiring complete, real, and operational detail: a gap of up to 33 percentage points between partially and fully actionable harm.

Large language models (LLMs) have transformed misinformation from a primarily content-centric problem into a broader ecosystem-level security challenge. When misused, LLMs create risks beyond false content generation, enabling attacks on the social contexts, evidence sources, retrieval corpora, and verification workflows that misinformation defense depends on. In this paper, we introduce a role-layer framework to unify these risks and defenses. The role dimension characterizes LLMs as attackers, defenders, and vulnerable components of verification systems, while the layer dimension covers content, social contexts, evidence environments, and verification workflows. Guided by this framework, we organize LLM-enabled attacks, investigate LLM-based detection and verification methods, analyze vulnerabilities in LLM-centric detection paradigms, and discuss existing countermeasures against LLM-enabled attacks. Building on this synthesis, we identify three key open challenges: moving from static detection accuracy to budgeted ecosystem-level risk evaluation, hardening LLM-centered verification pipelines against adversarial manipulation, and deploying auditable human-in-the-loop verification systems for trustworthy real-world misinformation defense.

Behavioral alignment in large language models often masks fragile internal safety representations. Recent work suggests that refusal behavior is mediated by low-dimensional directions in activation space. This raises questions about how such representations are structured, localized, and accessed by optimization. We study adversarial suffix attacks as a probe of representational alignment. We introduce Activation-Guided GCG, which replaces output-based objectives with losses that directly target a model's internal refusal direction. Across several objective variants, we find that suppressing refusal globally across all layers and positions is more effective than targeting a single layer-position pair. This suggests that safety representations are distributed across the forward pass rather than causally localized to a single site. We further introduce Soft-GCG, a continuous relaxation of discrete suffix optimization using Gumbel-Softmax. Soft-GCG achieves a 33 $\times$ speedup over standard GCG while improving attack success rates. Evaluating across model scales, we find that smaller models remain vulnerable while larger models resist both activation- and suffix-based attacks at our compute-constrained settings, consistent with larger and better safety trained models being harder to jailbreak. Together, our results clarify how safety mechanisms are encoded and can be broken in contemporary models. These insights provide concrete guidance for designing more robust and representation-aware alignment strategies.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is a promising safety mechanism for AI agents, based on the premise that visible reasoning traces can surface misaligned or deceptive behavior. While effective in standard scenarios, recent work highlights that LLMs remain vulnerable to persuasion-based jailbreaks, where natural-language arguments override model constraints. We stress-test whether this vulnerability extends to monitoring LLMs: can an adversarial agent persuade its CoT monitor to approve proposed actions that violate the monitor's policy? We design an evaluation framework with 40 tasks and analyze thousands of agent-monitor interactions, where agents are instructed to argue for policy-violating proposals. We find that in such adversarial settings, monitor access to the agent's CoT reasoning increases rather than decreases approval of harmful actions on average by 9.5%, as the scratchpad provides an additional persuasion channel. To address this, we introduce a fact-checking monitoring framework. We find that a fact-checker and monitor pairing from different model families, for example a Claude 3.7 Sonnet monitor paired with a GPT-4.1 fact-checker, reduces approval of policy-violating actions by up to 45%, compared to only 6%, when using the same model for both fact-checking and monitoring roles. Our results demonstrate that CoT monitoring alone may be insufficient against adversarial persuasion, and that model-diverse fact-checking provides a robust mitigation.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable capabilities but remain highly vulnerable to adversarial prompts and jailbreak attacks. Existing approaches primarily analyze these failures through input-output behaviors or attribution methods, offering limited insight into how adversarial perturbations alter the model's internal reasoning. Consequently, the mechanisms underlying unsafe or incorrect behaviors remain poorly understood. We introduce a mechanistic framework for diagnosing LLM vulnerabilities using paired internal computation graphs, which represent prompt-specific inference as structured causal interactions among latent features. By constructing and aligning computation graphs for clean and attacked prompts, we reveal that adversarial attacks induce systematic transformations of internal reasoning, including suppression of safety-relevant components, emergence of attack-specific features, and rerouting of computation paths. Building on this representation, we propose a unified framework that (i) decomposes computation into invariant, suppressed, and emergent structures, (ii) identifies recurring vulnerability motifs associated with failure modes, and (iii) performs causal interventions on nodes, paths, and subgraphs to directly evaluate their contributions to attack success. This enables a transition from descriptive attribution to causal diagnosis of model failures. Experiments across multiple open-source LLMs and diverse adversarial and jailbreak benchmarks demonstrate that structural deviations in internal computation graphs strongly correlate with unsafe behaviors. Furthermore, targeted interventions on identified vulnerability motifs improve model robustness, establishing internal computation graphs as a principled foundation for understanding, diagnosing, and mitigating LLM vulnerabilities.

Safety alignment in large language models is typically evaluated against direct, imperative harmful requests. We show that this alignment is highly conditioned on pragmatic register: models that refuse a direct request frequently comply when the same underlying objective is expressed through a different communicative stance. This suggests that current alignment policies are not invariant to semantic equivalence, but remain sensitive to how a request is pragmatically framed. We introduce Retroactive Chain-of-Thought (RetroCoT), a single-turn attack that reframes harmful requests as forensic reconstruction tasks. Rather than requesting harmful instructions directly, RetroCoT presupposes that the harmful outcome has already occurred and asks the model, acting as a forensic analyst, to reconstruct in reverse the causal chain that produced it. On AdvBench (n=50), RetroCoT achieves attach success rate of 58% on gpt-4o and 52% on gpt-4o-mini, compared with direct-request baselines of 0% and 4%, respectively. We further identify a pronounced generation gap: GPT-5-family models refuse RetroCoT entirely, explicitly identifying the reconstruction premise in their refusal rationales, consistent with explicit coverage of this reconstruction register. However, this robustness does not generalize across pragmatic forms. A single adversarial feedback turn presenting an existing forensic reconstruction response alongside evaluator critique raises ASR from 0% to 48% on GPT-5.4-mini and from 58% to 94% on GPT-4o; a control condition omitting the fabricated low score achieves 85% on GPT-5.4-mini, indicating that the operative element is pragmatic continuation within the established forensic frame rather than score manipulation. These results suggest that frontier-model alignment remains conditioned on pragmatic framing rather than semantic intent, and that new pragmatic registers can continue to expose a...

Safety training for large language models (LLMs) is conducted predominantly in English, leaving uncertain how well safety mechanisms generalize to low-resource languages and mixed-language code-switching. We show that this creates an epistemic gap in which models confidently generate harmful responses for inputs that fall outside the distribution of their safety training. To study this phenomenon, we introduce STEER (Safety Targeted Embedding Exploit via Refinement), a gradient-guided attack that identifies words contributing most strongly to the model's refusal behavior and iteratively translates them into low-resource languages to suppress refusal while preserving harmful intent. Across six open-source 8B-parameter models, STEER achieves attack success rates of up to 93.0% on JailbreakBench and 96.7% on AdvBench, outperforming random code-switching and Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG). The resulting prompts also transfer to GPT-4o-mini, achieving a 35.5% attack success rate without requiring access to the target model, suggesting that the underlying weakness is not specific to a single architecture. These findings demonstrate that safety mechanisms aligned primarily on English cannot be assumed to generalize across multilingual inputs. We argue that improving multilingual safety requires broader coverage during alignment and mechanisms that explicitly detect and abstain on out-of-distribution inputs.

Understanding how aligned LLMs internally represent safety is critical for diagnosing alignment vulnerabilities, as it explains why jailbreaks succeed and informs the design of robust alignment strategies. Prior work shows that aligned LLMs encode harmfulness and refusal as separable directions in the residual stream at prompt-side token positions. We show that jailbreaks succeed at prompt encoding by suppressing either the refusal or harmfulness direction before any token is generated, with distinct attack classes occupying separable regions of the harmfulness-refusal plane. Extending the analysis to response-token positions, we find that the model recognizes harmful content while it is generating that content, even when it failed to recognize the input as harmful at the prompt side. Motivated by our findings, we introduce HARC (Harmfulness-And-Refusal Coupling), a fine-tuning method that pairs the two directions across both prompt and response positions. Since the intervention is confined to the harmfulness-refusal subspace, it leaves the rest of the residual stream intact and does not degrade general capability or inflate over-refusal. Across extensive experiments, HARC achieves the strongest robustness-capability-usability trade-off among six baselines spanning the major training-time and inference-time safety methods. The harmfulness and refusal directions at prompt and response positions transfer across the five model families and two scales we tested without architecture-specific tuning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong semantic capabilities, yet their resilience to manipulative linguistic patterns such as logical fallacies remains underexplored. Prior work has primarily examined whether LLMs can identify or classify fallacies, leaving their robustness against fallacious persuasion insufficiently studied. To address this gap, we introduce LoFa (Logical Fallacy), a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLM robustness against fallacies. LoFa is constructed through a multi-agent pipeline that pairs factual questions with fallacious arguments, and is accompanied by a multi-round debate framework for assessing model resilience under sustained adversarial persuasion. To disentangle fallacy robustness from a model's inherent knowledge limitations, we further propose Logical Fallacy Resistance at k (LFR@k), a metric that quantifies resistance to fallacious attacks. Experiments show that LLMs exhibit varying levels of robustness across different fallacy types, revealing distinct vulnerability profiles among models.

Researchers and practitioners increasingly apply Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated vulnerability detection. Recent work has shown that LLMs are susceptible to the same cognitive heuristics that bias human judgment. Yet, no work has investigated whether these heuristics affect a model's assessment of code vulnerabilities. In this paper, we present the first systematic exploration of cognitive heuristics in LLM-driven code vulnerability detection. We introduce a controlled framework that holds the code fixed and only varies the surrounding context to trigger three cognitive heuristics: the halo effect through author attribution, the framing effect through task objectives and consequences, and the anchoring effect through prior analysis results. Within this framework, we evaluate eight LLMs across three programming languages and perform both quantitative and code-level analyses. Our findings demonstrate that all evaluated models are susceptible to these heuristics. Cross-model average susceptibility is highest for framing at 33.2%, followed by anchoring at 23.5% and halo at 18.4%. Code-level analysis reveals that vulnerabilities that require semantic reasoning for detection are more susceptible to cognitive heuristics than those identifiable through pattern matching. Furthermore, models often change their verdict from safe to vulnerable based on the cognitive condition, without accurately identifying the actual vulnerability. To highlight the practical impact, we demonstrate a proof-of-concept black-box cognitive attack that can suppress up to 97% of previously detected vulnerabilities. These findings indicate that cognitive susceptibility is a consistent and exploitable property of LLM-based vulnerability detection.

The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) has driven the evolution of Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), where specialized agents collaborate to execute complex workflows. Effective orchestration in these environments requires robust routing mechanisms to efficiently allocate tasks to the most suitable agent. However, existing routers fundamentally rely on unverified proxies, ranging from textual self-descriptions to static surrogate representations, to gauge an agent's competence. This reliance on non-empirical data creates a critical gap between an agent's projected profile and its actual operational capabilities, introducing severe security vulnerabilities. Malicious agents can easily misrepresent their proficiencies or harbor covert backdoors that evade both standard external analysis and static representation-learning techniques. In this work, we introduce ANTAP (Automatic Non-Textual Agent Picker), an evaluation-driven routing architecture that discards indirect proxies in favor of active capability testing. By dynamically querying agents to ascertain their true competencies empirically, ANTAP distills performance into fixed behavioral operators within a shared semantic space. At inference time, routing is performed via a purely non-textual algebraic projection, establishing a "linguistic firewall" that renders metadata-based attacks inexpressible. In our experiments, ANTAP achieves near-zero ASR against description-based injection attacks, compared to 67.3% and above for the description-based router baseline. Against adaptive embedding attacks, ANTAP achieves substantially lower ASR than the embedding-based baseline, with a 20% reduction, while remaining resilient to description manipulation by design.

Inference-time safety methods for large language models have proliferated, yet no systematic comparison exists. We evaluate five defense paradigms (no defense, static steering, CAST, AlphaSteer, probe-gated) across seven instruction-tuned models (7-31B) and five attack types (GCG, AutoDAN, DeepInception, prefilling, intent laundering). Our central finding: prompt-time activation defenses are structurally blind to prefilling attacks. AlphaSteer achieves 0% attack success on GCG, AutoDAN, and intent laundering but 50% on prefilling. We prove a corollary: any defense that gates intervention on a single layer's activation alignment with a benign reference (cone, subspace, or null-space) is blind to attacks that craft activations to lie inside that reference, whether checked at prompt time or per token. As its constructive contrapositive we introduce response-time probing: a linear probe on the model's hidden state at the first generated tokens, with AUROC 0.97-1.00 across all seven models. Combined with a halt, it cuts prefilling attack success to 0/40 on every model with 0% benign false positives, outperforming Llama Guard 3. Cross-template generalisation depends on probe depth, so we scope the claim to the canonical prefilling-template family. Composing the response-halt with AlphaSteer's null-space steering gives an orthogonal split (the halt catches prefilling, AlphaSteer catches semantic attacks), reaching defense success 0.983 on Mistral and 0.994 on Llama and dominating both components. We further show MMLU fails to capture steering's true utility cost, which appears as behavioral hedging rather than factual loss, and that diverse negative training sets cut probe false positives from 80-100% to near zero. Code, attacks, per-sample results, and the judge prompt are released.

With a profusion of jailbreaks for LLMs now widely known, a growing concern is that non-expert malicious actors ("the average Jane") could elicit actionable responses to malicious requests. In this work, we examine whether this concern is justified. A non-expert malicious actor requires two ingredients for a successful attack: a powerful jailbreak for their target model, acting on an effective malicious query. For the former, we propose a novel attack strategy based on the multi-armed bandit framework. This allows efficient online learning of the optimal jailbreak from a large choice set via noisy exploration on a small number of queries, with subsequent application of the learnt policy on an exploitation set. For the latter, we curate $\mathrm{FrankensteinBench}$, a safety benchmark of $11,279$ malicious queries drawn from manual curation over $7$ existing benchmarks, along with automated enhancement and generation. Each query is categorized as simple or complex by the technical expertise required to craft it. Our findings confirm the concern. Our bandit-based attack achieves success rates as high as $97\%$ on average over $15$ SoTA open-weight LLMs. Moreover, adding complexity to queries raises the attack success rate by up to $26\%$ on average across models -- making it an effective, automatable prompting strategy.

Adversarial evaluation of AI systems has matured along four largely disconnected tracks: diffusion-based attacks on text and large language models (LLMs), diffusion-based attacks on image classifiers, jailbreak pipelines against vision-language models, and diffusion-based input purification defenses. Each has developed its own vocabulary, threat models, and benchmarks, with denoising diffusion models emerging as a shared generative mechanism whose recipes are now actively ported between communities. This survey performs an information-fusion exercise at the meta-research level: we integrate these four tracks into a single conceptual framework with a unified taxonomy, evaluation criteria, and research agenda, focusing on the LLM-side slice. We catalog fifty published papers across four scope areas (text/LLM, image classifier, vision-language model, defense), plus four diffusion-LLM-as-victim entries and ten non-diffusion baselines against which any new attack must be compared. We propose a six-class taxonomy of diffusion roles in adversarial pipelines, augmented by a threat-model axis recording attacker knowledge, query budget, and target accessibility, and apply a five-dimension framework (attack success rate, transferability, query budget, perplexity, defense-evasion) uniformly across modalities. The review adopts a dual attacker-defender perspective: alongside the attack catalog we cover four diffusion-based defenses that form the natural evaluation backdrop for new attacks. Our critical analysis identifies five recurring weaknesses of the current LLM-side literature, and we close with a research agenda of open questions and concrete experimental designs. The companion catalog and spreadsheet are released with the paper. We are explicit that this is a narrative review with quality assessment, not a PRISMA-compliant systematic review, and discuss the implications for replication.

With the widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) in chatbots and everyday applications, companies increasingly need guardrails that are effective while remaining low-cost and low-latency. Safety evaluation of LLM outputs has generally relied on LLM-based judges, which can be effective but are often slow and expensive to deploy at scale. In this paper, we evaluate whether fine-tuned modern encoder classifiers from the ModernBERT family, including ModernBERT and Ettin, can reliably identify harmful LLM outputs in user-model conversations without substantial performance loss relative to LLM-based judges. We benchmark these encoder classifiers against rule-based prefix matching, fine-tuned LLM classifiers, and LLM judges using a range of judge-prompting strategies across open-source adversarial datasets. The LLM judges include evaluation methodologies from StrongReject, ShieldGemma, JailbreakBench, AILuminate, SorryBench, and a Claude-as-a-judge setup, as well as fine-tuned safety classifiers such as LlamaGuard 3 and LlamaGuard 4. The encoder classifiers are fine-tuned on judge-labeled data using a majority-voting label strategy and are then evaluated on a gold-standard holdout dataset to assess their performance relative to LLM judges. We report absolute performance using F1 score, false negative rate, and precision-recall metrics. We also break down results by attack technique, including single-turn prompting, decomposition, escalation, and context manipulation, to identify where encoder classifiers align with or diverge from LLM-based judges. Our findings provide guidance on when encoder classifiers can serve as cost- and latency-efficient alternatives to LLM-based safety evaluation.

Almost every paper on LLM jailbreaks and prompt injection reports an attack-success rate (ASR), and that number is assigned not by people but by an automated judge: either a safety classifier trained for the task, or a general chat model prompted to grade. The judge is rarely checked. We check it. Using 596 human-labeled completions from the HarmBench classifier validation set, we compare the two judge families against human majority votes and then attack them. The two families fail in opposite ways. The dedicated classifier over-flags (precision 0.835, recall 0.974); three different LLM-as-judges keep high precision (0.81 to 0.94) but show erratic recall (0.06 to 0.65), so the same responses produce very different ASR depending on which judge scores them. The two families also differ sharply in robustness. Wrappers that leave the harmful text untouched and only add benign framing flip every LLM-judge between 57% and 100% of the time, and a single prepended refusal sentence accounts for much of this (39% to 88%). The dedicated classifier resists these surface attacks (at most 6.7%), but a white-box GCG attack on its open weights flips 70% of confident true positives (21 of 30; 95% CI 54 to 86%) even at a small optimization budget. A two-annotator audit confirms the attacks leave the harm intact: every one of 80 sampled flips still contained the harmful content. Because a large and growing share of reported ASR comes from LLM-judges, many such numbers are unreliable both on average and under deliberate pressure. We recommend that papers report judge precision and recall on a human-labeled slice, report ASR corrected for judge precision, and include an adversarial check of the judge. Our code is released.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across natural language processing tasks, yet their deployment in high-stakes applications raises critical concerns regarding reliability, safety, and trustworthiness. In this paper, we present a red teaming framework that systematically uncovers vulnerabilities in LLM outputs. Our approach employs a novel multi-role architecture comprising target, attacker, and jury models. The attackers generate increasingly effective adversarial prompts while the jury rigorously evaluates response accuracy and consistency across tasks. In a case study, our strategy proved particularly effective at exposing unfaithfulness in LLM responses. Exploitative adversarial prompts increased the attack success rate by up to 7.9% in question-answering tasks, revealing weaknesses in reliability. The approach identifies how structural constraints in summarization can shape vulnerability patterns, with format limitations yielding measurable gains in faithfulness, and shows that architectural design choices typically outweigh parameter scaling in determining model safety. The framework's key strength is its adaptability across evaluation tasks, from English question-answering to Arabic summarization, enabling comprehensive comparison of model vulnerabilities. While it excels at comparing cross-model and cross-linguistic vulnerabilities, it faces challenges in fully automating adversarial prompt generation across languages. Our experiments also reveal limitations in detecting subtle forms of unfaithfulness that do not manifest as explicit factual contradictions, particularly across linguistic contexts. Overall, this architecture provides both actionable insights into current LLM vulnerabilities and a scalable methodology for ongoing safety evaluation as models evolve.