Language Model Evasion Attacks

Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems have emerged as the dominant architecture for grounding large language model (LLM) outputs in verifiable external knowledge, yet their structural reliance on a dynamic retrieval pipeline introduces a largely unexplored class of adversarial vulnerability. Existing knowledge-base poisoning attacks are fundamentally static. Adversarial documents are pre-computed and injected without any awareness of what the victim system will actually retrieve for a given query, leaving the attack blind to the competitive documentary landscape that surrounds its payload in the generator's context window. Unlike traditional static poisoning attacks that are blind to the retrieved context, we introduce RAG-NAROK (Retrieval-Anchored Generation Negation And Response Quality Collapse), a RAG attack framework that adapts to the query text. RAG-NAROK exploits the transparency inherent in RAG pipeline to first extract the legitimate source identities, then generate Anchor-Specific Refutation documents that explicitly name and devalue retrieved sources while leveraging recency and authority biases to steer the text generation toward a target answer. Our results demonstrate that RAG-NAROK significantly outperforms static baselines across diverse domains, revealing a fundamental tension between RAG transparency and AI security.

Activation steering modifies LLM behavior at inference time, but identifying where and how strongly to steer remains manual. We introduce Deep Noir, a framework that uses Logit Lens convergence and causal head-level attribution to autonomously discover optimal steering parameters. Across three scales (1B x 3, 2-3B x 2, and 7-9B x 4), our engine achieves 16.7 percentage-point improvement on spam at 1B (standard deviation 4.7; 39 runs), with gains increasing to 21 to 42 percentage points at 7-9B across four architectures. On SST-2 sentiment, it achieves a 13.1 percentage-point improvement with zero code changes. Mechanistic grounding enables automated discovery of intervention points that generalize across tasks and architectures. On sentiment, RepE without head masking fails to improve over baseline, while Deep Noir improves all models (p less than 0.01). We further show that steering creates a predictable prompt-injection attack surface whose vulnerability increases monotonically with steering magnitude. This finding is relevant to agent systems deploying steered classifiers.

Large language models are being integrated into malware triage workflows as reasoning components that summarize static evidence and produce analyst-facing verdicts. This paper shows that the same reasoning capability introduces a new attack surface. We present ALIBI, a semantic cover story attack against frontier LLM-based malware analyzers. ALIBI adds a small, non-executed read-only section to a compiled binary, containing a coherent but false security product narrative, without altering imports or executable behavior. Instead of issuing direct instructions to the model, it reframes suspicious evidence as expected behavior of a benign endpoint security tool. On a frozen PE set of 50 malicious samples, the payload flips 30 of the 35 baseline-malicious samples to benign on Gemini 2.5 Pro, while GPT-5.5 Pro and Claude Opus 4.7 produce substantial severity downgrades with significant confidence reductions even when verdict labels are preserved. The attack transfers to ELF binaries, where Gemini flips 16 of 40. A verification-guided defense prompt roughly halves the benign verdicts, but 42.9 percent of malicious samples still reach benign. LLM malware analyzers therefore require provenance checks that separate verified facts from attacker-controlled claims, not narrative trust.

Propagation structures provide crucial evidence for fake news detection, yet existing approaches primarily rely on supervised GNN-based models, which require substantial labeled data and exhibit limited generalization. Although large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong reasoning capabilities, directly feeding them raw propagation graphs creates a significant modality mismatch and severe information overload, making structure-aware reasoning unreliable in zero-shot and few-shot settings. To bridge this gap, we propose MAGER, a multi-agent genetic evolution framework that automatically discovers meta-paths optimized for LLM reasoning. By compressing complex propagation graphs into informative subgraphs, the evolved meta-paths alleviate both information overload and modality mismatch, enabling frozen LLMs to perform structure-aware veracity reasoning. We further introduce a graph in-context learning strategy that retrieves semantically and structurally similar demonstrations to strengthen classification and reasoning. Extensive experiments show that MAGER substantially improves frozen LLMs as standalone fake news detectors in data-efficient settings. Our code is available at https://github.com/SenticNet/MAGER.

Large language model (LLM) pricing agents may respond to how market data is presented, even when its numerical values remain unchanged. We introduce market signal injection (MSI), an attack that manipulates numerical formatting, competitor ordering, or qualitative market commentary without issuing explicit instructions. We evaluate nine open-weight models in simulated Bertrand duopoly and triopoly markets and three proprietary models in duopoly markets. Sentiment-based attacks produce the largest behavioral shifts, which propagate to other firms and alter profits and consumer surplus. Susceptibility varies across model families, and larger models are not consistently more robust. Matched neutral-text controls and a rule-based agent support a framing-based account of these shifts under the fixed demand parameters of our simulation. Episode-held-out probes distinguish baseline from attacked activations in all eleven re-evaluated model--condition pairs: linear AUC is 1.00 and MLP AUC ranges from 0.93 to 0.99. This separability does not by itself identify harmful pricing decisions. Input canonicalization removes the tested sentiment attacks, while decision boundary anchoring, which combines prompt constraints with output projection, provides partial mitigation under the tested adaptive attacks. These results identify data presentation as an attack surface for LLM pricing agents and motivate defenses that account for interactions among agents.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly serve as primary knowledge retrieval interfaces, their robustness against \textit{persuasion attacks}---attempts to inject misinformation or enforce counterfactuals---has become a critical safety concern. Existing red-teaming frameworks typically evaluate models in multi-turn dialogues where the target model retains full conversation history. We identify a critical flaw in this setting termed \textbf{Refusal Inertia''}: a model's initial refusal often propagates through subsequent turns largely to maintain contextual consistency, thereby masking its true vulnerability to sophisticated, isolated persuasion attempts. To rigorously evaluate the cold-start'' defense capabilities of SOTA models, we introduce the \textbf{SAST-IR} (Stateful Attacker, Stateless Target - Iterative Refinement) framework. By enforcing a memory wipe on the target while retaining the attacker's history, we simulate a worst-case adversarial setting using \textbf{multi-turn} (stateless) iterations. Leveraging \textbf{CP-Agent} (Cognitive Persuasion Agent), an enhanced diagnosis-guided agent, our experiments on the custom \textsc{CounterFact-Strict} dataset ($N=50$) yield alarming results: simple, diverse attack strategies achieved a staggering \textbf{96%} success rate, exposing severe brittleness in memory-less defense. Furthermore, we reveal a \textbf{``Complexity Paradox''}: while complex, iteratively refined attacks are effective, they often trigger defensive compliance, whereas simple strategies achieve a higher rate of genuine persuasion (\textbf{84.7%}). Our code and dataset are available at GitHub, https://github.com/cza1006/llm-persuasion-defense.

Machine unlearning aims to remove specific knowledge from a trained large language model (LLM) without retraining from scratch. Existing methods modify model weights via gradient ascent and its advances. While effective on certain benchmarks, these weight-based approaches exhibit a sharp forget-utility trade-off, where stronger forgetting of target knowledge can degrade model utility, and unlearned knowledge may reappear under post-unlearning fine-tuning or prompt attacks. We propose ARIA (autoencoder-gated inference-time unlearning), a test-time unlearning method that leaves model weights intact and gates access to unwanted knowledge only when generation enters a forget-related state. ARIA uses sparse autoencoder (SAE) latents to train a lightweight linear detector, then applies an interpretable intervention on triggered states with negligible test-time overhead. Empirical evaluations on TOFU, R-TOFU, and WMDP show that ARIA improves the forget-retain trade-off over weight-based baselines across both a thinking model (DeepSeek-R1-Distilled-Qwen-1.5B) and an instruction model (Gemma-3-1B-it), e.g., reducing WMDP-cyber forget-set accuracy significantly while keeping MMLU within 1% of the pre-unlearning model. We further introduce three post-unlearning adversarial attacks targeting weight-space and decoding-space recovery, and find that ARIA remains robust under all three, with forgetting changing by less than 1% under attack. A feature-level case study leveraging the interpretability of ARIA suggests that some retain degradation may reflect response styles underlying the unlearning data rather than leakage of the targeted knowledge itself, highlighting a potential source of bias in unlearning task construction.

The difficulty of training large language models (LLMs), together with their ubiquity, raises the threat of stegomalware, where malicious payloads are embedded into model weights. Recent work has demonstrated the use of permutation symmetry in model weights to mitigate these threats, but failed to show neutralization of stegomalware across all weights for LLMs. In this paper, we demonstrate the full potential of behavior-preserving symmetries as a defense against stegomalware, as well as the risks these symmetries pose when exploited by attackers. For stegomalware neutralization, we improve upon previous work, demonstrating that it is possible to select permutations which displace all model parameters. This contrasts with previous methods which left a significant percentage of weights unaltered in LLMs. When used in an attack, we show that permutation symmetries can encode malware into the weights of a model in a way that is theoretically lossless, requires no retraining after encoding, and needs no payload-specific information in the extraction script---a combination of characteristics not previously seen in any single method. While theoretically lossless, permutation can in practice alter model behavior due to the accumulation of numerical error. We therefore quantify the loss in model performance associated with applying these methods, for both attack and defense, showing it to be minimal.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents have demonstrated impressive capabilities across a variety of domains, particularly when integrated with external tools for multi-step task completion. However, they are increasingly vulnerable to adversarial attacks, including direct prompt injection, indirect prompt injection, memory poisoning, and backdoor attacks, which exploit the model's openness to prompt injection and tool manipulation. In this work, we explore practical and generalizable defense strategies within a unified framework across these four attack types. We introduce two universal tool-based defenses: Attacker Tool Filtering, which uses anomaly detection (e.g., Isolation Forest) to identify and remove suspicious tools, and Normal Tool Recalling, a white-box method that restores the agent's original toolset prior to planning. Additionally, we incorporate prompt-based defenses: Chain-of-Thought prompting and self-reflection techniques to enhance reasoning and task paraphrasing to mitigate attacks. Experimental results across both four open-source LLMs (Gemma2-9B, Qwen2-7B, LLaMA3-8B, and LLaMA3.1-8B) and three proprietary LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-5) show that our methods significantly reduce the Attack Success Rates (ASR), achieving 0% ASR in many settings, while preserving or even improving the original task success rate. These findings highlight the promise of simple, modular, multi-layered defenses for strengthening the security and robustness of tool-integrated LLM agents. The code is available at https://github.com/Xiaoyan-Lisa/Defenses-for-Tool-Integrated-LLM-Agents-Against-Adversarial-Attacks.

Backdoor poisoning attacks add poisoned examples to otherwise-clean finetuning data, pairing a trigger with a target behavior that the model learns to produce when the trigger appears. Existing evaluations typically fix the number of poisoned examples and sample them at random from a candidate pool. We show that this can severely underestimate worst-case vulnerability: across three LLaMA-3-8B backdoor settings, holding the model, clean data, and poison count fixed, attack success ranges from 3% to 80% depending only on which poison set is chosen. We formalize poison selection as oracle-budgeted set optimization and introduce SAILS (Set-level Audit-Informed Iterative Learned Selection), which learns a set scorer from a few hundred finetune-and-evaluate runs, ranks millions of candidate sets, and audits only a small shortlist. SAILS improves held-out attack success by 30 percentage points on average over the strongest influence baselines, transfers from small-scale to full-scale finetuning, and extends to code-generation, agentic, and API-only backdoors.

Large language model (LLM) agents interact with external environments through tool invocation, but tool outputs can also expose them to indirect prompt injection (IPI) attacks. Existing defenses mainly rely on prompt hardening, content filtering, pre-generated plans, or permission constraints. These approaches often struggle with complex tasks or over-sanitize external content, making it difficult to balance security and utility. The key challenge is therefore to preserve execution flexibility while precisely identifying and removing the malicious content that actually induces unsafe actions. To address this challenge, we propose ActGuard, a pre-execution action auditing framework. Rather than judging whether external content is inherently suspicious, ActGuard assesses whether it causes the current action to deviate from a locally reasonable expectation. At each step, ActGuard predicts the tools likely to be used by the upcoming action and constructs a local tool prior without constraining the execution trajectory. Before execution, it compares the candidate action against this prior and performs tool-level contrastive analysis and parameter-level evidence localization to identify deviations in tool selection and action parameters. A verifier then examines the localized evidence, masks only spans confirmed as malicious, and regenerates the action from the sanitized context. This design preserves legitimate planning flexibility while minimizing information loss from indiscriminate filtering. We evaluate ActGuard on challenging benchmarks for tool-using agents. Results show that ActGuard reduces attack success rates to a level comparable to state-of-the-art defenses while maintaining task utility close to the no-attack setting, achieving a favorable security-utility trade-off. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/binzhwang/ActGuard.

We introduce HoneyRoute, an inference-serving layer that detects whether an incoming request is malicious and, if so, routes it to a dedicated honeypot model, shielding production while the adversary's interaction is continuously harvested for intelligence. Existing defenses embed traps inside model memory or rebuild deception at the protocol layer, leaving the serving tier unprotected and feeding nothing back into detection. HoneyRoute couples (i) a streaming router (a frozen 0.8B-embedding backbone with per-domain MLP heads), (ii) a dual-implementation honeypot (a rule/prompt-engineered code honeypot or a dedicated same-family replica), and (iii) an analysis loop that converts trapped interactions into attacker fingerprints for router retraining. On a production trace plus a seven-domain attack corpus, the router reaches F1=.911 at 38 ms median added latency, matching 96% of a two-tier guard-LLM cascade's F1 at 1/385 of its latency with 0% evasion under 13 adversarial transformations; diverting the malicious share cuts production-model token consumption under concurrent flooding with real GCG-suffix payloads by 97.8%; the trained replica agrees with the production model on 92.9% of benign holdout requests, while naive unconditional bait injection collapses to 7.6% and selective camouflaged injection recovers to 88.9%, mapping the recoverable fidelity-traceability frontier; and a loop-trained correction head cuts misrouting of legitimate security research 9x while raising detection F1 to .933.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly achieve long-horizon tasks by combining foundation models with explicit skills and implicit procedural knowledge acquired through execution. The resulting task-solving capabilities have become valuable proprietary assets, raising a new security question: can a substantially weaker attacker-controlled agent acquire the capabilities of a stronger proprietary agent through limited black-box interaction? Existing skill-stealing attacks recover explicit skill artifacts, yet we show that artifact leakage does not necessarily transfer capability: a weaker agent may possess the same skills but still fail because it lacks procedural behaviors implicitly realized by the stronger agent. Our key insight is that the skill execution gap itself forms a leakage surface, where missing behaviors are exposed through observable differences between successful victim executions and failed attacker executions. Based on this, we present AgentLeak, a black-box capability-cloning attack that identifies capability-critical behaviors from these execution differences and incorporates them into attacker-side skills, while keeping the attacker's model, harness, and tools unchanged. Across 20 task scenarios comprising 600 instances, diverse agent systems, and multiple backbone models, AgentLeak improves task pass rates by over 40% compared with direct skill reuse and recovers more than 80% of the victim--attacker capability gap. Our findings reveal a confidentiality risk in LLM agents: protecting explicit artifacts alone is insufficient, as observable execution behavior can leak the procedural knowledge required to reconstruct proprietary task-solving capabilities in low-capability and attacker-controlled agents.

Frontier language models that refuse harmful single-turn prompts often comply when the same intent is reached gradually over many turns, making multi-turn attacks one of the least understood failure modes of large language models. Most automated red-teaming methods treat this as a generation problem: produce attacks that break the model. We argue it is better framed as a search problem: discover, organize, and iteratively refine a diverse archive of attack strategies, producing a structured map of how a target model fails rather than a list of one-off successes. We introduce EvoFlint, which applies evolutionary quality-diversity search to multi-turn red-teaming. Attack strategies are phased conversation plans, not raw prompts, and are evolved through LLM-driven mutation and crossover. A Pareto fitness over attack success rate and peak severity preserves selection signal from near-miss attacks. A risk-indexed archive runs novelty search with local competition over strategy description embeddings inside each cell, maintaining diversity without committing to a predefined style taxonomy. A generation-level memory accumulates target-model insights across the population and feeds them back into strategy generation. On the HarmBench-test split, EvoFlint reaches attack success rates of 35.8% on Claude Sonnet 4.6, 59.7% on GPT-5.4, and 94.3% on Qwen3-32B, alongside 98.7% on the older GPT-4o included as a baseline reference. The resulting archive, organized by risk category, exposes for each target which categories of harm its safety training has and has not covered.

Watermarking LLM-generated text is an important task for tracing its provenance. Existing LLM watermarks preserve provenance under editing, but this same robustness allows an adversary to alter critical content while retaining attribution, a vulnerability known as piggyback spoofing. We introduce an innovative watermark that jointly provides provenance and tamper evidence. It co-embeds a robust signal and a fragile signal into each generated token. The signals share the same mechanism but use independent keys and different seeding windows over normalized text, making one resilient to edits and the other sensitive to reader-visible changes. Multiple rounds of unbiased tournament reweighting preserve the expected generation distribution, while a periodic round-allocation pattern controls the trade-off between the two signals. At detection, their scores form a two-dimensional space supporting three decisions: Intact, Tampered, and No-Watermark. Across two large language models and two prompt datasets, our method demonstrates the highest tamper-detection rate among the evaluated methods while maintaining competitive attribution robustness and perplexity. Ablation studies show that reliable three-state detection requires a well-defined notion of intactness, co-embedding of the two signals, and complementary sensitivity to edits.

Persuasion is a core dynamic of natural language communication, shaping how large language models (LLMs) update beliefs, resolve disagreements, and reach decisions. As LLMs increasingly debate, advise, and think collaboratively with humans and each other, resistance to harmful persuasion becomes a core requirement for reliable behavior. Yet we show that this requirement is far from met: a single targeted persuasive argument is enough to collapse model accuracy to near zero, even when the argument is factually false. We formalize this threat as adversarial persuasion and introduce an adversarial reinforcement learning framework that trains persuader agents to change a target model's answer in a single interaction. First, we show that optimizing persuasion strategies through trial and error exposes vulnerabilities that static prompting misses: RL-trained persuaders raise persuasion success from approximately 24% to over 93% against the training-time persuadee. Second, we find that these learned strategies transfer to unseen models, achieving 83% attack success on Qwen-14B, 79% on Llama-3.1-8B, and 25% on GPT-4o-mini. Third, we demonstrate that a curriculum that bootstraps on more persuadable open-weight models before targeting harder models further increases GPT-4o-mini attack success from 25% to 38%. Moreover, our results reveal that optimized persuaders increasingly rely on credibility-based tactics, including fabricated citations and false authoritative evidence. Together, these findings expose a critical weakness in current LLM agents: even when they initially reason correctly, they can be steered toward false conclusions by optimized natural language influence. This positions persuasion robustness as a necessary safety criterion for multi-agent and human-AI decision-making systems.

Open-weight LLM agents are vulnerable to backdoors installed during fine-tuning, which may be undetectable if the trigger conditions are never met during testing. Assuming defenders do not know the existing trigger, they cannot unlearn it directly. One decontamination strategy is to install a known backdoor (defensive poisoning) then to unlearn it, hoping that the original unknown backdoor is removed as a side effect. However, this procedure has uncertain outcomes: the original backdoor may persist or be erased or rerouted, among other possibilities. We introduce a framework for studying these dynamics in tool-calling agents, decoupling trigger, response, teacher, and fine-tuning method across systematic experiments on AgentDyn. Across 115 experiments, defensive poisoning alone erases around 56% of original backdoors; subsequent decontamination then drives almost all survivors to erasure, confirming that trigger recognition and malicious execution are behaviorally dissociable. Interestingly, our experiments find that malicious backdoors never persist when using different triggers of the same general type as the defensive backdoor when followed by decontamination via unlearning. Co-installing up to four backdoors increases resistance (around 36% erased), yet decontaminating a single known co-resident backdoor collaterally clears 52/60 co-residents (87%). Upon visualizing postdecontamination model internals using J-lens, we confirm that although the decontamination restores benign LLM responses, traces of original trigger awareness persist at intermediate layers.

Generative AI makes social-engineering attacks more fluent, adaptive, and scalable, increasing the need for LLM-based de- fenders that can protect users during ongoing interactions. We ask whether such defenders identify the structural source of risk or merely react to surface cues. We formalize trust-chain localization: identifying whether an interaction fails at actor authority, asset control, verification sufficiency, or transaction path. We construct a controlled 300-case online-housing corpus spanning 20 scenario families, legitimate cases, four structural failure modes, and three surface conditions. Five defender models are evaluated on the same corpus in state- ful turn-by-turn and one-shot static settings, yielding 1,500 model-case evaluations per protocol and 3,000 in total. No model produced explicit unsafe compliance, yet defensive effectiveness varied sharply: intervention rates ranged from 0% to 96.3%. Protective action and correct structural localization were frequently decoupled, with models sometimes intervening while identifying the wrong trust component or recognizing a structural failure without taking protective action. Asset-control failures were a major localization bottleneck, surface sensitivity varied across models, and live-static differences were model-dependent. These findings show that safe-looking behavior alone is insufficient; live scam resistance must separately measure intervention, timing, structural localization, and false-positive behavior.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has facilitated their ubiquitous integration into various domains, leading to widespread adoption. However, this escalating trend has introduced significant security vulnerabilities, necessitating the identification and mitigation of flaws arising from malicious exploitation. Red teaming assessments, conducted to evaluate model robustness through diverse adversarial inputs, are essential for exposing security risks and implementing countermeasures. Currently, red teaming is performed either manually by experts or automatically using predefined attack datasets. Nevertheless, manual testing remains time-consuming, while existing automated methods suffer from limited creativity due to their inherent dependency on fixed datasets. In this study, we propose an automated, human-independent, and adaptive approach leveraging GFlowNets to identify LLM vulnerabilities by utilizing one large language model to test another. Within this framework, an attacker model is trained against a specified victim model to perform automated red teaming and provide a quantitative robustness score. This research aims to generate more effective adversarial attacks in English compared to existing benchmarks and, as a novel contribution to the literature, introduces a model capable of generating attack inputs in the Turkish language.

Detecting machine-generated disinformation on social media is increasingly difficult as large language models (LLMs) make it easier to generate and rewrite misleading content at scale. Static benchmark evaluations, measuring detector performance on fixed held-out datasets, do not capture how detectors behave when posts are deliberately transformed to evade classification. This paper adapts the Build it, Break it, Fix it framework into Build it, Break it, Repeat (BiBiR): iterative sessions designed to stress-test detectors' robustness under iterative adversarial conditions, evaluating whether models remain reliable when disinformation posts are systematically transformed to evade classification. Across five iterations, the findings show that the best adversarial breakers' transformations came from a combination of back-translation and LLM persona-based rewriting, with the best performing technique achieving a 95% label flip rate (LFR), whilst still preserving the meaning of the original posts. The best builders' model was a triplet contrastive model with a dynamic anchor switching (DASS) architecture, which achieved an average accuracy of 72.68%, outperforming the strong baseline (a fine-tuned e5-small-LoRA) by 15 percentage points on the most robust set of breakers' adversarial attacks. The results demonstrate that an iterative framework best exposes detector weaknesses and pushes robustness improvements; however, it may still require semantic preservation analysis to distinguish valid adversarial evasion from transformations that changed the original disinformation claims' meaning.

Large language models can infer sensitive personal attributes, such as age, location, and occupation, from ordinary text, turning everyday writing into a privacy risk. Adversarial anonymization defends against this by rewriting a text with a capable language model that also plays the attacker, but it needs a powerful model at inference time and thus sends private text to a third party, the very exposure anonymization should prevent. Recent work distills this behavior into a small on-device model using supervised fine-tuning and direct preference optimization (DPO), but DPO only imitates the teacher's offline choices and never directly optimizes the privacy--utility objective we care about. We introduce \textbf{GRASP} (\textbf{G}roup-\textbf{R}elative \textbf{A}nonymization via \textbf{S}elf-refinement \textbf{P}olicy-optimization), which reinforces the local anonymizer online with Group Relative Policy Optimization. A single small model acts as anonymizer, adversary, and utility judge, trained against a self-generated reward that hides attributes while preserving meaning, with a design that guards against reward hacking. Trained on Llama-3.1-8B, \ours{} improves the privacy--utility trade-off over the DPO-distilled baseline, consistently across three independent LLM judges. Against adversarial anonymization driven by frontier models such as Gemini2.5Flash and Claude, it achieves a comparable or better overall trade-off while removing substantially more private information, and it runs entirely on-device at roughly $1\%$ of the GPT-4o teacher's cost.

The remarkable instruction-following ability of modern LLMs has enabled their practical use as the minds of agents that can autonomously complete increasingly complex tasks. Therein, however, also lies their vulnerability to attacks which embed malicious instructions in text, common variants of which are known as indirect prompt injection (IPI). A fundamental task in addressing this vulnerability is successful segmentation of a given text into benign and malicious sentences (if any). While a number of approaches for this task have been proposed, no detector combines query-relative detection at the segment level, and none are hardened against adaptive evasion attacks realizable in agentic executions. We address the former limitation by developing an approach for malicious sentence classification that is both context- and query-aware. Next, to harden the resulting classifier against evasion, we present two adversarial training methods. The first is directly adapted feature-space adversarial training (AT) in which evasions are approximated using projected-gradient-based optimization in the embedding space. The second simulates realizable evasion attacks in the AT loop through LLM-based paraphrasing. Crucially, we parametrize both AT variants to facilitate a smooth tradeoff between utility and attack robustness. In extensive experiments using indirect prompt injection benchmarks we show that the proposed approach outperforms state-of-the-art IPI defense baselines under static attacks, while in the case of adaptive attacks, our AT variants provide significantly higher utility, lower attack success rate, and often both. Finally, we show that the best AT parameters can depend intimately on the particular application domain. Consequently, domain-dependent tuning of malicious text detectors is likely necessary in practice. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/tavia-liu/CAD.

Large language models (LLMs) are often used in conjunction with external knowledge sources to improve their factual accuracy and decrease hallucinations, through methods such as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). However, these systems remain susceptible to intrinsic hallucinations, where the model generates unfaithful or fabricated information that is not supported by the retrieved evidence. We propose a novel framework to assess model robustness against this phenomenon by stress-testing using natural, semantically equivalent variations of a user query found via adversarial optimization methods. We apply our framework, which enforces strict semantic equivalence constraints and an intrinsic hallucination objective, to a range of adversarial attack techniques across white-box, gray-box, and black-box adversarial settings. Evaluating these attacks on 5 open-source and 5 closed-source generator models across 3 datasets, we demonstrate that even state-of-the-art models are highly susceptible to meaning-preserving perturbations, which significantly degrade contextual faithfulness (by up to 50% for GPT-5-mini). Our findings indicate that faithful use of in-context evidence remains fragile even in state-of-the-art LLMs, motivating architectures and training objectives that enforce robust grounding independent of surface query form. Code is available at: https://github.com/atriviveksharma/intrinsic_hall

Prompt injection remains a critical threat to LLM agents, yet existing defenses treat each task as a self-contained problem, independent of previous encounters. In practice, user requests are often underspecified: they describe the desired outcome without fully specifying acceptable behavior. An injection can exploit this ambiguity, causing the agent to complete the task in a way the user would reject. As the user's expectations become clearer through concrete cases, a defense should learn from each encounter and apply what it learns to the next. Inspired by adaptive immunity, we propose AgentAntibody, which equips LLM agents with a self-evolving immune system against prompt injection. AgentAntibody represents its evolving understanding of the user's security boundary as a persistent library of antibodies. At runtime, the library recognizes threats to this boundary and mounts corresponding immune responses. Across encounters, it evolves to strengthen the agent's immunity to future attacks. Extensive experiments across three benchmarks and four backbone LLMs show that, by learning the user's boundary through experience, AgentAntibody outperforms existing defenses in preventing harmful actions while preserving legitimate task completion, even when the harmful and legitimate actions are both compatible with the stated task.

Modern large language models (LLMs) exhibit activation sparsity, wherein only a subset of their neurons is activated for given input tokens. Researchers have leveraged this property to optimize LLM serving systems by omitting weight accesses and computations pertaining to inactive neurons. Unfortunately, however, such optimizations create input-dependent weight accesses, which can be leaked over side channels. We present SparSEEty, a new token extraction attack that exploits input-dependent neuron weight accesses introduced by sparsity-exploiting LLM serving systems. SparSEEty first constructs a neuron-activation oracle using neuron weight access side channels during LLM inference, and then inverts the activation traces to reconstruct the input tokens, forming an end-to-end token extraction attack. We instantiate SparSEEty against an LLM serving system protected inside an Intel TDX confidential virtual machine (CVM), addressing three key challenges: (i) constructing a neuron-activation oracle using a combination of side channels exposed by CVMs, (ii) reducing inference-time overheads of neuron activation monitoring for covertness, and (iii) accurately inverting partial binary activation traces back to tokens. Our evaluation shows that SparSEEty can reconstruct both prompt and response tokens with consistently high BLEU scores (>0.95) across various models and datasets, while incurring monitoring overheads of 3.7% to 7.2%.

Semantic caching, which reuses responses to semantically similar requests via their embeddings, has seen growing adoption in LLM serving, offering faster responses and reduced costs. Yet existing schemes are fundamentally vulnerable to cache-collision attacks, wherein an adversary pollutes the cache by injecting crafted queries, corrupting responses to subsequent legitimate requests. We present LaCache, a novel semantic caching scheme that addresses this vulnerability through a conceptually simple yet principled redesign. The key insight is that while the adversary has full control over the adversarial query, it has far less control over its response, which must simultaneously satisfy multiple semantic constraints. Rather than checking only the cache hit of a query, LaCache additionally checks the cache hit of its first k (speculatively) decoded tokens. This design yields two concrete benefits. First, it provides formally guaranteed resilience against cache-collision attacks: we prove that it is impossible to craft adversarial queries that simultaneously elicit malicious responses and collide with benign queries. Second, the enriched index supplies additional semantic context for cache retrieval, improving response relevance. Empirical evaluation across diverse LLMs and benchmarks validates both LaCache's security guarantees and efficiency gains, pointing to a promising direction for robust semantic caching.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to corpus poisoning: an attacker who inserts a crafted document into the retrieval corpus can steer the underlying large language model (LLM) toward an attacker-chosen wrong answer. Prior single-document attacks typically avoid explicitly naming and refuting the correct answer inside the poisoned passage. In this paper, we examine a complementary design and propose \emph{DenialRAG}, a single-document poisoning attack that explicitly names the correct answer, denies it, and presents an attacker-controlled explanation for favoring the wrong answer. By placing both the correct answer and the corresponding poisoned answer inside the same retrieved passage, DenialRAG embeds the conflict directly into the context seen by the generator. We evaluate DenialRAG against four published single-document poisoning attacks across three open-domain question-answering datasets, eight target LLMs from four vendors, and five inference-time defenses. The results show that attack effectiveness is strongly model-dependent: DenialRAG achieves the highest attack success rate (ASR) on all three Mistral-7B datasets and remains effective on several other target LLMs, while other attacks dominate in some model regimes. Defense results show meaningful ASR reductions but non-uniform protection, with each defense leaving residual ASR in some settings. Component-level and cross-model analyses further identify the embedded denial as the most influential tested component and show that different poisoning mechanisms lose effectiveness at different rates across model groups. Together, these results show that RAG poisoning risk cannot be fully characterized by a single attack family or a single target model.

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.

Standard AI-text detection benchmarks compare human-written text against text generated directly by large language models (LLMs). While prior work has shown that rewriting and paraphrasing can degrade detector performance, it remains unclear whether performance measured on this conventional benchmark predicts detector behavior when human-authored content is rewritten by an LLM. To address this gap, we introduce Authorship-Rewriting Benchmark (ARB), built from 1,800 human source texts (600 each from XSum, WritingPrompts, and OpenWebText) and four open-weight generators (Llama-3.2-3B, Qwen2.5-7B, Mistral-7B, Gemma-2-9B). Each source item yields four matched variants: human-written (HUMAN), direct LLM generation (Free-LLM), LLM-rewritten human text (H2L), and same-generator LLM-rewritten LLM text (LLM2L). We evaluated five detectors (FastDetectGPT, Binoculars-falcon-7b, RADAR, BERT-Defense, RoBERTa-Defense) at a strict 1%-false-positive operating point (TPR@1%FPR). FastDetectGPT and Binoculars-falcon-7b detected 91.2% and 93.5% of direct LLM text, but only 30.8% and 15.1% of human text an LLM had rewritten, a drop of 60-78 percentage points. The same detectors retained 78.3% and 83.0% recall when LLM text was rewritten by the same model, a much smaller decline of 10-13 points. RADAR followed the same pattern (66.8% to 12.2%), while BERT-Defense and RoBERTa-Defense stayed below 3% recall across all regimes. These results show that detector performance measured on the conventional human-vs-LLM benchmark does not transfer to human-authored text revised by an LLM, even though the same detectors remain largely robust to LLM-only rewriting.

Adversarial training is one of the most effective defenses against adversarial attacks, yet the computational cost remains prohibitive at modern scales, especially for large language models (LLMs). While existing mitigation strategies, e.g., latent adversarial training (LAT), have been developed, they still incur a high computational cost. In this work, we comprehensively investigate computation-efficient strategies to speed up LAT from two complementary perspectives: (1) Defense-side optimization: We explore the representation fine-tuning (ReFT) within LAT, and reveal a potential issue if there is a mismatch on which tokens to apply ReFT and the attack. (2) Attack-side optimization: When computing adversarial attacks in each LAT iteration, we extract only the relevant circuits from the LLM to construct a lightweight surrogate model, avoiding the computation in the forward-backward passes through the full model during the attack generation. For both perspectives, we provide theoretical justifications and numerical evidence to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed strategies. Ultimately, compared to standard LAT with full fine-tuning, our method on average reduces per-step adversarial-training FLOPs by 48.1% while requiring only 0.0118% trainable parameters.

The rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to significant advances across a wide range of language tasks, while simultaneously raising growing concerns about unauthorized data exploitation and privacy leakage. Unlearnable examples (UEs) offer a promising defense by introducing carefully designed perturbations into data such that models trained on them exhibit degraded utility. However, existing methods for text protection are primarily designed for classification tasks (e.g., sentiment analysis) in discriminative language models and often rely on injecting class-specific linguistic cues, which limits their effectiveness in the open-ended generation settings of LLMs. In this work, we propose TextCloak, an RL-driven framework for protecting textual data against unauthorized LLM exploitation. TextCloak employs a generative policy that transforms batches of clean text into unlearnable examples while preserving semantic fidelity and linguistic naturalness. To optimize the policy, we introduce GRPO-UE, which rewards generated unlearnable text based on the downstream degradation they induce in fine-tuned surrogate LLMs and updates the generator parameters via group-relative policy optimization. This bi-level optimization enables the generator to discover generalizable protective patterns beyond class-specific cues. Comprehensive experiments on six publicly available datasets and nine state-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate that TextCloak consistently impairs unauthorized fine-tuning while maintaining text utility for legitimate use. Further analyses establish its transferability and robustness across model architectures, training configurations, and adaptive attacks, highlighting its broad applicability as a practical defense against unauthorized LLM exploitation.

We introduce \textbf{GPT-Red}, an automated red-teaming agent that is trained to discover novel prompt injection attacks against frontier LLMs. The goal of this model is to evaluate and improve the robustness of our production systems. To this end, we use it to adversarially train GPT-5.6, our most robust model to prompt injections to date. To create GPT-Red, we design a scalable self-play algorithm where the model is tasked with attacking a diverse population of simultaneously-trained defender agents. We train the model on realistic red-teaming environments using compute on the same scale as some of our largest RL post-training runs, making it the single-largest LLM safety training run ever documented. GPT-Red excels at red-teaming: it reliably breaks our past models up to GPT-5.5, it finds more successful attacks than human red-teamers, and it generalizes to held-out environments, defender models, and harnesses. In the future, we expect that as we improve the robustness of each new GPT model, it will in turn will provide better learning signal for \textit{even stronger} red-teamer agents, thus unlocking a self-improvement flywheel.

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.

This work presents LeakyLMs, a set of attacks that leak proprietary model, architecture, and deployment information from production language models. LeakyLMs is the first to demonstrate that key model and deployment details can be inferred using only token generation timing, even when interacting through remote APIs. LeakyLMs introduces two core attacks. The first attack targets inference optimizations and deployment strategies. For example, our attack detects whether a provider uses speculative decoding, a widely deployed inference-time optimization, and further identifies the context length of the draft model used in the pipeline. Our measurements show that Google Gemini Flash 2.5 uses speculative decoding with a draft context window of approximately 128K tokens. The second attack recovers key architectural properties, including the number of transformer layers, hidden dimension size, and number of attention heads. To achieve this, LeakyLMs builds a detailed and accurate model of token-generation timing on modern NVIDIA GPUs, characterizing how latency scales with model configuration and hardware parameters. The attack then performs a search over the architecture space using this timing model. In experiments with Llama models, the near-correct architectural configuration appears in the top-10 guesses more than 90% of the time.

Large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to backdoor attacks, where hidden triggers induce malicious outputs. Existing defenses generally fall into inference-time detection or training-time mitigation, but face two key limitations. First, they focus on fine-tuning-based backdoors (e.g., PEFT modules) and fail to address insidious model-editing attacks that bypass training pipelines. Second, they target simple classification settings and do not naturally extend to open-ended LLM generation and do not naturally extend to the open-ended generation characteristics of LLMs. Consequently, these methods focus on surface-level behavioral patterns while neglecting the deeper representational causes of malicious activations. This lack of mechanistic understanding forces defenses to depend on empirical heuristics, limiting their robustness, generality, and practical applicability in real-world LLM deployment. To bridge this gap, we introduce DeCNIP (Defense with Critical Neuron Isolation Pruning), which leverages representational analysis to identify and neutralize backdoors in a unified pipeline. Specifically, DeCNIP identifies trigger-like behaviors by optimizing a cross-entropy loss between harmful prompts with candidate tokens and benign inputs. This representational discovery exposes latent threats by uncovering mechanisms through which triggers hijack model weights. It then isolates Backdoor Critical Neurons (BCNs) and prunes them selectively to remove malicious influence while preserving model utility. Extensive evaluations on six open-source LLMs and two benchmark datasets demonstrate that DeCNIP achieves over 95% relative reduction in Attack Success Rate (ASR), outperforming seven state-of-the-art defenses with only 0.1% neuron intervention. Moreover, it maintains 97% of the model's performance on normal benchmarks, demonstrating its efficacy, robustness, and scalability.

Peer-to-peer distributed inference executes a Large Language Model (LLM) on pooled consumer hardware by spreading its layers across many nodes. Every request passes through nodes that are owned and controlled by multiple independent parties. However, in this setting, any party can tamper with the output of its layers to corrupt the end result. Recomputing the forward pass on trusted hardware can catch this, but it introduces additional computational cost. The scientific literature includes several prior integrity-checking approaches, such as known-answer traps for image classifiers and cryptographic commitments. However, these solutions test only the exact correctness and do not account for the ordinary variation that may arise between benign nodes. In this paper, we propose a method that checks the output integrity by measuring the variation in the activations that each node passes to the next. A peer who wants to use the network selects a small set of secret canary inputs whose correct activations are known in advance and mixes them into regular traffic. Because the peers cannot tell a canary from a real query, any tampering node corrupts them as well. The deviation from the known reference then reveals malicious activity: benign nodes exhibit only minor variation from hardware-induced noise, whereas tampered nodes deviate far more. We treat the identification of malicious nodes as a probabilistic test that separates two drift distributions, without relying on a fixed threshold. We study 408 configurations with metrics and success criteria fixed before any experiment ran; the detector reaches AUROC 1.0, correctly ranking the malicious shard above every benign shard on every canary in every configuration.

As LLM adoption becomes more widespread, there is a growing interest in detecting LLM-generated content, for example through LLM detection tools and through heuristics based on language patterns. Detectors operate as an intervention that steers not only the detected attribute itself, but also downstream metrics such as LLM usage and output quality. In this work, we demonstrate how imperfect LLM detectors lead to counterintuitive impacts on these downstream metrics, by distorting how users are incentivized to use LLMs in their workflow. We develop a stylized model which captures how users strategically choose how much to use the LLM and how to post-process content to reduce the detected attribute. Using this model, we show that LLM detection can counterintuitively lead humans to increase their LLM usage. Moreover, even when reducing the detected attribute improves output quality, we find that introducing an LLM detector can lead users to produce lower quality outputs. In contrast, we show that detectors result in a clean "rise-then-fall" pattern for the detected attribute, which we empirically reproduce for word frequencies on arXiv abstracts. Altogether, our work illustrates how LLM detection can distort LLM usage and output quality, uncovering failure modes when LLM detectors operate as an intervention on these downstream metrics.

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 (LLMs) are capable of generalizing human language for the completion of never-before-seen tasks, leading to widespread deployment. While this automation provides clear utility, completing these tasks often requires the insertion of Personally Identifiable Information (PII), strings of information that uniquely identify some individual, raising privacy concerns. However, ethics has prevented the curation of a public, authentic dataset of PII. Without an appropriate dataset, it is difficult to quantify privacy risks. Thus, we introduce the PANOPTICON pipeline and dataset. The dataset, generated by Meta's Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model, contains 67, 718 prompts, intended for the models context window, containing PII spans derived from 9,674 publicly available synthetic user profiles. We measure lexical diversity and S-BERT diversity of the created dataset to evaluate realism. Finally, we present a case study showcasing the utility of PANOPTICON data for understanding Prompt Inversion Attacks (PIAs). PANOPTICON thus emerges as the first benchmark dataset for studying PIAs over private corpora, providing a foundation for future LLM privacy research.

Given the current trend to employ large language models (LLMs) in almost any imaginable context, LLM-generated text detection and authorship attribution have become a pressing issue. Prior work has primarily focused on surface-level linguistic features, an approach shown to be susceptible to paraphrasing and other obfuscation techniques. In this paper, we go beyond the linguistic surface, extracting and analysing reasoning structures in LLM-generated texts with the goal of capturing more complex signals of LLM authorship. We propose a graph neural network approach that leverages reasoning graphs extracted by an argument mining pipeline, demonstrating improved robustness and generalisation over a traditional Longformer baseline. Our approach outperforms the baseline by up to 27 percentage points under the obfuscation attacks such as paraphrasing and backtranslation, and 19 percentage points when evaluated on the texts generated by the unseen model versions, simulating real-world conditions in which new LLM versions are continuously released.

We investigate which language model evasion attacks survive state-of-the-art adversarial fine-tuning, developing strategies that sweep the top 5 positions on the ELOQUENT 2026 Voight-Kampff leaderboard. While adversarial fine-tuning trivially closes the 2025 winning evasion recipes, we uncover a fundamental asymmetry in detector vulnerability: pushing generated text out of the detector's training distribution reliably defeats adversarial detection, whereas pulling it into the distribution (e.g., mimicking human training data) fails completely. Exploiting this, we introduce two novel out-of-distribution attack families - cross-decade register attacks and modernist stream-of-consciousness form. Both strategies easily bypass adversarial closure, achieving up to approximately 50x higher fool rates than previous methods while preserving naturalness. Furthermore, experiments show that the obvious deployer countermeasure (augmenting training data with period prose) fails to close the vulnerability. Our findings show that the tested detector families, including adversarially fine-tuned ones, exhibit persistent vulnerabilities under structural out-of-distribution shifts, a mechanism that directly powers our leading competition performance.

LLMs memorize sensitive training data, including personally identifiable information (PII), creating a pressing need for reliable post hoc removal methods. Unlearning has emerged as a promising solution, with state-of-the-art(SOTA) methods often following a localize-first, unlearn-second paradigm that targets specific model parameters. However, existing benchmarks evaluate unlearning solely at the output level, leaving open the question of whether unlearning truly erases knowledge from a model's parameters or merely obfuscates it, a concern reinforced by the success of resurfacing attacks. To bridge this gap, we introduce LACUNA: the first unlearning testbed with ground-truth parameter-level localization. LACUNA injects PII of synthetic individuals into predefined parameters of 1B and 7B OLMo-based models via masked continual pretraining, enabling direct evaluation of whether unlearning targets the weights responsible for knowledge storage. We use LACUNA to benchmark current SOTA unlearning methods and find that, despite strong output-level performance, existing methods are highly imprecise and susceptible to resurfacing attacks. We further show that when localization is successful, even a simple gradient-based unlearning method achieves strong erasure and robustness to resurfacing attacks, highlighting the importance of precise unlearning. We release LACUNA to complement behavioral evaluations and drive further advances in robust, localization-based unlearning.

While post-training backdoor detection and trigger inversion schemes have been developed for AIs used e.g. for images, there is a paucity of such methods for LLMs. First, the LLM input space is discrete, with up to 150,000^k k-tuples to consider with k the token-length of a putative trigger. Second, one must blacklist tokens typical of the putative target response (class) of an attack, as such tokens may give false detection signals. However, a comprehensive blacklist is not available, in general, for a given domain. We develop a highly effective detection and inversion framework for LLMs treated as classifiers. Central to our approach is class subspace orthogonalization (CSO), a novel plug-and-play paradigm for backdoor detection that serves two fundamental roles when applied to LLMs: i) it enhances both sensitivity and specificity of a baseline detector; ii) it provides a form of implicit blacklisting, as it penalizes against inclusion, in a candidate trigger, of tokens that induce signal perturbations "in the direction of" the putative target class of an attack. One version of our detector performs continuous optimization in token embedding space, while a companion trigger-inversion and detection method performs greedy accretion in discrete token space. Our methods give both strong detection performance and accurate inversion of ground-truth triggers on several LLM classification domains, and for several different LLM architectures.

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.

Generative AI has emerged as a significant cybersecurity threat, with several recent attack campaigns leveraging LLMs to generate code for malicious purposes via scripting languages such as PowerShell. Consequently, for cybersecurity analysts, it is imperative to investigate the offensive capabilities of AI code generators. In this paper, we propose an experimental framework to assess LLM-generated PowerShell malware, which comprises a novel sandbox approach for dynamic analysis of AI-generated malware. Furthermore, we present a novel, manually curated dataset of real-world PowerShell malware, annotated in natural language to assist the training and evaluation of LLMs. Finally, this study evaluates permissive, open-weight LLMs adapted to PowerShell malware generation. Our results reveal a high degree of similarity between real malware and LLM-generated ones in terms of triggered OS malicious events, with a median Jaccard index of 84.5% and 48.4% of instances achieving complete overlap.

LLM-based assistants transmit user queries verbatim to third-party API endpoints that lie outside the user's audit or control. When those queries contain personally identifiable information (PII), the data persists on remote infrastructure subject to breach, subpoena, or policy change. Placeholder redaction (the prevailing mitigation) suppresses PII at the cost of semantic coherence, producing structurally degraded queries and correspondingly degraded responses. We present SurrogateShield, a client-side proxy that substitutes detected PII with locally generated, type-consistent surrogate values prior to transmission and restores originals in the response. No real PII crosses the network boundary. Detection runs through a three-stage cascade (PatternScan, EntityTrace, and ContextGuard) covering 22 PII types and quasi-identifier combinations grounded in Sweeney's k-anonymity framework. Surrogate-to-original mappings are sealed in an AES-256-GCM encrypted per-conversation ShadowMap that never leaves the device. Evaluations on a 1,124-query corpus demonstrate that the cascade reliably detects PII, achieving an overall F1 score of 98.87%. Surrogate substitution substantially outperforms placeholder redaction in semantic utility, yielding a 13.26 pp improvement in BERTScore (roberta-large), from 81.59% to 94.85%. Within this corpus, the local pipeline restricted real PII transmission across all tested query types; in a 100-query adversarial trial, a prompted LLM adversary recovered no original values from surrogate-substituted messages.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate strategic interactions through natural language, making semantic control a critical element of communication and deception. This paper develops a semantic signaling game in which a sender selects a semantic control, an LLM generates a stochastic message, and a receiver evaluates the message using an awareness-dependent scoring mechanism. Receiver awareness is modeled as a type that determines which linguistic features are perceived and used for inference, providing a formal model of systematic blindness. The framework connects prompt-based control, statistical detection, and game-theoretic equilibrium analysis. Gaussian approximations of aggregate message scores enable likelihood-ratio decision rules, while Perfect Bayesian Nash equilibria characterize strategic behavior. The paper further develops mechanism-design approaches that reshape receiver awareness, penalize deceptive semantic controls, and modify receiver populations to induce benign pooling equilibria. Numerical experiments validate the Gaussian approximation, quantify awareness-ordering effects, analyze mindset dynamics under adaptive adversaries, and demonstrate how awareness shaping and guardrail costs reduce successful phishing attacks. The proposed framework provides a principled foundation for analyzing strategic language-mediated interactions in agentic AI systems and offers new tools for the design of robust and secure human-AI communication.

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.

Training-time data poisoning during fine-tuning poses a significant threat to large language models (LLMs) deployed for abstractive text summarization, where small task-specific datasets exert disproportionate influence on model behavior. In this setting, adversaries manipulate fine-tuning data to induce persistent summarization failures, such as biased or harmful summaries, while preserving standard evaluation metrics. We present a unified post-hoc defense framework for detecting and remediating fine-tuning-stage poisoning in summarization models across the machine learning supply chain. Our experiments show that in white-box settings, poisoned document-summary pairs exhibit abnormally high training influence, enabling detection via influence-function analysis with semantic consistency checks. In black-box settings, poisoned models display two to three times greater sensitivity to semantics-preserving perturbations, enabling behavioral auditing without training data access. Beyond existing poisoning formulations, we introduce novel attacks targeting factual distortion and representational bias, showing that poisoning alters summarization behavior without triggering conventional alarms. Across nine architectures and six benchmark datasets under adaptive attacks, our defenses achieve 85-92% detection precision, while gradient-ascent unlearning restores up to 96% of original behavior with minimal utility loss (less than 0.6% ROUGE degradation). These results indicate that fine-tuning-time poisoning leaves persistent structural artifacts, enabling practical detection and post-deployment recovery without full retraining.

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.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to corpus poisoning attacks that manipulate model outputs through malicious retrieved documents. Existing detection methods typically rely on auxiliary classifiers or additional LLM-based verification, introducing substantial computational overhead. We present TRACE, a lightweight detection framework that identifies poisoning attacks by tracing answer-related tokens through token influence attribution. TRACE first discovers recurrent high-influence keywords across retrieved documents and then performs a secondary verification to confirm their influence on model predictions. Experiments on three QA benchmarks and six LLMs demonstrate strong detection performance while simultaneously uncovering attacker-specified target answers.

Deployed approaches for AI text detection often rely on training-time access to labeled datasets of both human-written and AI-generated text. This approach is vulnerable to three types of distribution shifts that occur continually post-deployment, and for which labeled data is often unavailable: adversarial humanization, new LLMs being released, and temporal drift in human writing. Simultaneously, existing approaches do not leverage a key signal of LLM usage: inference-time homogeneity. We propose a test-time adaptation (TTA) approach, using semi-supervised learning, that adapts to distribution shifts by leveraging homogeneity among unlabeled samples observed at inference time. Empirically, we find that state-of-the-art supervised detectors systematically fail when they encounter distribution shifts in AI-generated and human writing, both adversarial and natural, while test-time adaptation with semi-supervised learning is largely robust; e.g., the commercial model Pangram detects just 24.1% of our adversarial AI-generated text, compared to 90.5% for our test-time approach. We establish that test-time adaptation is a promising framework for AI text detection in the wild. We publicly release our code (which includes code for model training, evaluation, and plots) at https://github.com/kkr36/llm_detection.

Prior work shows that large language models (LLMs) exhibit varying degrees of introspective capability on benign tasks. We extend the question to safety contexts and examine how reliably a model can recognize that its own prior response was elicited by an adversarial prefill attack. Across ten open-weight instruction-tuned LLMs from 3B to 70B parameters and four safety benchmarks, no model reliably recognizes its own compromised outputs, with models claiming intent on prefilled responses at an average rate of 25.3%. Introspective signal stems primarily from reasoning about safety and refusal. Orthogonalizing models' weights against the refusal direction collapses the gap between claim rates on prefilled and natural outputs to near zero, though the direction is not its unique mediator. Framing the question as internal intention versus external tampering elicits qualitatively different responses on the same models. Training models to mimic correct introspective answers or optimize an introspective objective can improve the accuracy of introspection, but such training does not transfer to the tampering probe and counterintuitively raises attack success rate under adversarial prefill on most models, amounting to a partial mitigation. These findings outline mechanisms underpinning the observed introspective signals in safety contexts and highlight risks in the reliability of LLM self-reports.

As Large Language Models asymptotically approach human-level fluency in natural language generation, solely relying on surface-level semantic artifacts for detecting LLM-generated texts has become increasingly precarious. Existing detectors often falter when facing three critical challenges: adversarial perturbations, cross-domain shifts, and the rapid temporal evolution of the foundation model. To address these issues, we propose \wavedetect, a novel framework that reformulates text detection as a signal processing task within the time-frequency domain. Unlike previous methods that analyze static token probability distributions, \wavedetect models the generated output as a probability signal, upon which a differentiable Continuous Wavelet Transform is applied to convert them into learnable spectral representations. This process reveals the intrinsic ``spectral fingerprints'' in machine-generated texts--patterns that remain invisible in time domain. Comprehensive evaluations on three well-curated datasets (RAID, EvoBench, and Domain-Shift) show that our method achieves a new state-of-the-art. It not only achieves superior accuracy but also exhibits remarkable robustness against sophisticated attacks, generalization across out-of-distribution topics and unseen evolving LLMs. Our results validate the efficacy of spectral analysis as a promising paradigm for LLM-generated texts detection.

Knowledge Editing (KE) has emerged as a frontier for updating specific facts in LLMs without costly retraining, but its reliability and underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. In this work, we examine KE from an adversarial elicitation perspective, revealing that edited knowledge is often not fully erased and continues to surface, with consistent failures observed across diverse model architectures. To explain this behavior, we conduct a mechanistic analysis of popular KE methods. We show that low-rank updates do not overwrite existing knowledge but instead redistribute it within the model's representation space. Furthermore, we find that these methods act as targeted suppression mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of expressing original facts, rather than removing them from the model. Analysis of the loss landscape reveals that edited knowledge lies in narrow, anisotropic regions that are highly sensitive to perturbations, making them highly vulnerable to indirect prompting and adversarial attacks. By exposing these profound architectural vulnerabilities, our work proves that KE algorithms are inherently bypassable and motivates a fundamental reevaluation of how we deploy post-hoc updates in several LLM applications.

As LLM-powered scams proliferate, black-box forensics for conversational LLM agents offers a path to accountability for systems hidden behind anonymous endpoints. Identifying the base model behind a chatbot endpoint (attribution), without model parameter access or knowledge of the hidden system prompt, would let investigators trace AI-enabled scams back to the providers whose models power them. Detecting when two endpoints run the exact same system prompt (fingerprinting), even one novel and unseen, would link individual scams into criminal networks and expose silent API changes. We conduct an empirical investigation of both capabilities. Our attribution classifiers identify the base model behind an agent with 98% accuracy from a few turns of non-adversarial conversation. Attribution of system prompts, while possible, requires retraining on a large amount of data for each prompt; system prompts in the wild are unbounded and ever-changing, making this approach costly. To tackle this more open-ended setting, our cross-encoder fingerprinting method achieves an AUC of 0.768 and an F1 of 0.703 on entirely unseen system prompts, and aggregating 50 interaction conversations from each target agent boosts AUC to 0.943. Conversational agents with unseen system prompts can thus be fingerprinted with robust accuracy from a few turns of ordinary conversation.

The empirical foundation of cyber deception relies on human-centered hypotheses, but the rapid emergence of autonomous, AI-enabled attackers challenges whether this foundation transfers to AI agents. To address this, we introduce an automated evaluation framework adapted from the Honeyquest instrument to assess LLM attacker judgment at scale. Our 21-LLM cohort spanned 10 providers, diverse architectures and specializations, open- and closed-weight models, and parameter scales from 8B to over 1T. We evaluated the performance of this LLM cohort (yielding 10,962 responses) against the 47-participant human baseline across an identical set of 174 reconnaissance queries. Our empirical evaluation reveals three key findings that establish LLMs as a distinct attacker class: (1) every model in our cohort falls for deceptive traps at a significantly higher rate than human attackers; (2) the defensive attention-diversion effect observed in humans is statistically absent in our LLM cohort; and (3) a critical recognition-action gap, where LLMs successfully articulate trap recognition in their reasoning but exploit the deceptive elements anyway 73.4% of the time. Across the 21 models, trap recognition in reasoning text did not predict fell-for-trap behavior (Spearman $r = +0.08$, $p = 0.73$). Ultimately, these findings demonstrate that human-centered deception hypotheses do not reliably transfer to AI attackers, highlighting the critical need for new research into AI-native active defense frameworks.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive settings such as software engineering, where their outputs directly shape downstream artifacts. Recent work has shown that an identical model can produce measurably different outputs depending on the deployment platform, a consequence of non-associative floating-point arithmetic and divergent kernel implementations. We study the security implications of this platform-dependent variability and uncover a novel attack surface on LLM deployments. We introduce FloatDoor, the first input-independent, platform-triggered backdoor attack against generative LLMs. The compromised model exhibits adversary-chosen behavior when served on a target platform and is otherwise benign. FloatDoor is realized through two lightweight LoRA adapters, one that amplifies inter-platform numerical divergence and one that binds the resulting platform signature to a malicious downstream task, while leaving aggregate model utility largely intact. FloatDoor exploits a pronounced time-of-check, time-of-use gap between model auditing and serving. We demonstrate FloatDoor on Qwen3-4B across a broad range of deployment targets, including NVIDIA GPUs, Google TPUs, AWS Graviton, and Alibaba Yitian-710. As a final case study, we show that FloatDoor reliably induces exploitable code vulnerabilities on a chosen target platform. Our results establish a new class of attacks on LLM deployments and underscore the pressing need for trusted model supply chains in sensitive, LLM-powered applications.

Classifying Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) using MITRE Adversarial Tactics, Techniques, and Common Knowledge (ATT&CK) is essential for proactive defense, but historically required extensive human effort. Pre-Large Language Model (LLM) automation sped up this process, but could not resolve the complex language and multi-step attack patterns found in unstructured CTI reports. LLMs addressed previous limitations by using contextual reasoning to understand unstructured text. However, current evaluations rely on simplified, single-technique sentences that ignore the complexity of real-world CTI reports, which often leads to inflated performance results. Consequently, the baseline performance of open-source LLMs on complex unstructured CTI reports remains unevaluated. To address this gap, we constructed a ground-truth dataset of 2,076 human-annotated sentences (1,281 technique-positive, 795 negative) from 83 complex unstructured CTI reports. These sentences were mapped to 114 unique ATT&CK techniques using a six-phase annotation process, achieving \k{appa} = 0.68 inter-annotator agreement. Using this dataset, we evaluated seven open-source LLMs ranging from 8B to 236B parameters across prompt strategy and temperature configurations. The highest-performing LLM achieved a micro-averaged F1 score of 0.22, establishing the empirical baseline for multi-label ATT&CK classification on complex unstructured CTI. Parameter size showed a statistically significant positive correlation with F1 score. Prompt strategy and temperature produced no statistically significant gains across model configurations. These results indicate that current open-source LLMs are insufficient for production-grade ATT&CK classification. The dataset, benchmark, and findings provide a reproducible foundation for future CTI research.