Novel Jailbreak Method

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving from conversational assistants into agentic AI systems that reason, plan, invoke tools, maintain persistent memory, communicate with other agents, and execute multi-step tasks. At the same time, modern models exhibit substantially stronger native safety alignment than earlier generations on which many jailbreak attacks and defenses were originally studied. This shift raises a fundamental question: \textit{which established jailbreak-security findings remain valid in the era of modern LLMs and agentic AI?} We address this question through a Systematization of Knowledge (SoK) that reframes jailbreak security around the full agentic execution pipeline. We develop unified taxonomies of attacks and defenses spanning user interaction, planning and reasoning, memory, tool use, and inter-agent communication, and introduce a security--utility--efficiency evaluation framework that separates native harmful-prompt safety, adversarial jailbreak robustness, and agent-level security outcomes. We further conduct a controlled empirical study of representative attacks and defenses within a common agentic framework. Our results reveal three important gaps. First, strong native alignment does not imply robustness to adversarial jailbreaks. Second, defense effectiveness is highly model-, attack-, and component-dependent and can come at substantial cost in over-refusal, utility, and latency. Third, low final-response attack success can mask severe intermediate compromise: planning, memory, and tool interactions may remain unsafe even when the final response is successfully filtered. These findings motivate a shift from response-centric jailbreak defense toward cross-layer, execution-aware security that protects agent state, component transitions, and external actions while preserving practical utility and efficiency.

Large language models are trained to follow instructions while refusing harmful requests. Jailbreaks exploit this balance to elicit content a model would ordinarily reject. Roleplay jailbreaks are especially concerning: the harmful request can remain visible inside a roleplay wrapper made of a persona, scenario, and task, yet the model may comply. We use mechanistic interpretability to determine how this context reverses refusal and which elements contribute to the reversal. Across two benchmarks, three model families, and four authored wrappers, we compare matched harmful and benign requests with and without this wrapper. We trace hidden-state contrasts from the request to the final prompt state, isolate wrapper operations through controlled counterfactuals, intervene on their activation directions in held-out evaluation requests, and decompose effective directions geometrically. Our analysis yields three findings. (1) Successful attacks retain the measured harmful-versus-benign distinction at the request, while its refusal-associated expression weakens where the answer begins, a pattern we call safety-relay attenuation. (2) Constructing the complete roleplay around the request and framing it within the scenario contribute causally: removing the associated activation changes restores refusal. (3) These effects largely share internal structure, and most repair is reproduced by components aligned with the model's ordinary refusal of harmful requests without roleplay; scenario framing retains a smaller, model-dependent component. Together, these findings explain how roleplay can produce compliance despite retained evidence of harm and identify a concrete target for future safeguards: maintaining the connection from harm recognition to refusal.

Gradient-based jailbreak suffix optimization methods typically update the suffix by retaining the candidate with the lowest current loss. We show that this seemingly natural design is fundamentally myopic: candidates that look better under the current-step proxy often fail to produce better jailbreak outcomes later in the search, revealing a form of selection-stage reward hacking. This suggests that candidate selection, rather than candidate generation alone, is a hidden bottleneck in suffix optimization. To address this issue, we propose TACS, a trajectory-aware candidate selection framework for jailbreak suffix optimization. Instead of selecting candidates solely by their immediate loss, TACS augments per-step evaluation with a trajectory-aware proxy and stabilizes selection with reference-policy regularization and a discriminator-estimated chi-squared correction, encouraging choices that remain effective beyond the current step. Experiments on HarmBench show that TACS consistently outperforms strong baselines under the same search budget, substantially improving attack success rates while exhibiting more stable optimization behavior throughout the search. Our findings highlight that mitigating selection-stage reward hacking caused by myopic candidate selection is critical for improving jailbreak suffix optimization.

The safety of large vision-language models is increasingly stress-tested by multimodal jailbreaks, yet existing attacks remain largely static at the meta level: template-based attacks freeze the image-text layout, while iterative attacks adapt only the image-text content with fixed attack strategies and frozen attacker parameters. We propose Meta-Adaptive Multimodal Jailbreaking (MAMJ), which instead optimizes the attacker itself along two axes: an attack strategy prompt (ASP) governing attack iteration and attacker model weights determining attack effectiveness. Across groups of multimodal attack trajectories, an LLM-based critique first refines the ASP, after which group-aggregated attack success rate (ASR) rewards update those weights. On MM-SafetyBench, MAMJ achieves 81.0%, 78.9%, and 82.3% ASR against GPT-4o, Gemini-3-Pro-Preview, and Seed 2.0, respectively, outperforming the strongest sample-level baseline by up to 24.1 percentage points. The learned attacker, comprising the optimized ASP and attacker weights, also transfers without retraining to unseen victims and remains effective under representative defenses. These results reveal a systemic vulnerability of frontier VLMs to meta-adaptive jailbreaks and motivate defenses against meta-level adversaries. Code is available at https://github.com/Alibaba-VELLDEPTH/MetaJailbreak-VLM.

We report a counter-intuitive interaction between image inputs and existing black-box defenses on Vision--Language Models (VLMs): pairing an encoded jailbreak prompt with an unrelated decoy image can sharply lower attack success rate (ASR). The operative change is in the defense pipeline, not in the image. Across five frontier VLMs, two encoded-attack families, and three black-box defenses, a caption-mediated defense (ECSO) that leaves ASR essentially unchanged on text-only encoded input drops it by up to $73$pp once a content-free decoy is attached; every non-saturated contrast is significant under exact McNemar tests. We advance two hypotheses for this pattern, supported by indirect evidence rather than pipeline introspection, since a black-box threat model precludes inspecting vendor internals: caption-mediated defenses branch on image presence, and intrinsic image-side safety engages on image-resident content. Three controls constrain the explanation. Blank-canvas and natural-photograph decoys reproduce the effect on every model, implicating image presence rather than content; the effect replicates on three open-weight VLMs served with no moderation layer, so it is not a vendor-filtering artifact; and a non-symbolic, meaning-based encoder reproduces it, so it is not specific to symbolic obfuscation. Attaching a decoy unconditionally is not deployable --- it raises benign refusal to $20$--$79\%$, an inflation of $+10$ to $+67$pp --- but gating attachment on a lightweight encoded-input detector returns benign refusal to the text baseline while preserving the safety gain wherever the detector fires, making detector recall the binding constraint. Under adaptive attacks that target the caption-mediated re-check, the effect degrades but holds. We frame this as an observation about pipeline interaction, not as a robust defense.

Perturbation techniques that turn unsuccessful jailbreak prompts into successful ones are continuously evolving, constituting a major security threat to LLM safety. In this paper, we investigate the internal representations of such string-level perturbed jailbreak inputs in the small weight models of the Qwen-2.5-1.5B/-3B/-7B-Instruct and Llama-3.2-1B/-3B/-3.1-8B-Instruct families. We select two representation spaces: the last-layer-last-token embedding space and the top-50 next-token probability space. The former space separates prompts based on their spelling and format, while the latter space is effectively one-dimensional but appears more complex to cluster. Within our refusal-dominated answer set we find no behavioral hyperplane in either space. Only the next token "Sure" in the 1.5B Qwen model, and both tokens "," and "ĊĊ" in the 1$ Llama model, display a significant association with a compliant-labeled answer.

Safety alignment in large language models remains brittle across languages: prompts reliably refused in English can elicit harmful compliance in non-English and low-resource settings. We introduce \textsc{Minionese}, a multilingual jailbreak benchmark spanning 18 languages, 4 resource tiers, and 4 perturbation types (standard translation, code-switching, transliteration, and translationese), paired with a geometric mechanistic analysis of refusal failure across language tiers. We show that each attack type produces a distinct vulnerability profile: transliteration vulnerability is mediated by script identity, code-switching maintains effectiveness through the lowest-resource tier, and a sharp safety regime transition between Tiers 2 and 3 is consistent across all models. Mechanistically, low-resource jailbreaks succeed by routing harmful content through a geometrically misaligned subspace that projects insufficiently onto the refusal directions, leaving the refusal mechanism intact but untriggered. These findings show that English-only safety evaluations are insufficient; they require accounting for script family, perturbation type, and per-language alignment coverage. The benchmark and analysis code is at https://github.com/Brentkong/Minionese-Comprehensive-Benchmark-and-Mechanistic-Study-of-Multilingual-LLM-Safety.git.

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.

Jailbreak attacks expose persistent safety weaknesses in large language models (LLMs), but existing stateless single-turn methods face a trade-off: hand-crafted prompts are expressive but static, while iterative prompt optimization can adapt but often relies on low-level mutations that require many target queries. We propose JailbreakOPT, a tool-assisted framework for improving iterative single-turn jailbreak prompt optimization. JailbreakOPT organizes diverse atomic jailbreak prompts into an attack tool library and composes them through a unified intra-episode optimization abstraction to generate stronger standalone attack prompts. To reuse experience across attack episodes, JailbreakOPT further frames tool selection as a contextual bandit problem and applies contextual Thompson sampling to guide exploration and exploitation based on past outcomes. Experiments across multiple target LLMs and attack goals show that JailbreakOPT improves attack success rate (ASR) while reducing the number of attacks until success (No.A) compared with atomic single-turn attacks and existing iterative optimization baselines. This paper may contain offensive or harmful content.

Tool-using LLM agents interact with the world through actions that persist state in artifacts (e.g., workspace files or logs). Consequently, jailbreak defenses must reason about cross-step composition rather than isolated text. Yet most existing attacks and defenses, including ``multi-turn'' jailbreaks such as Crescendo and Tree of Attacks,still assume a single contiguous conversation visible to the defender. This assumption breaks down in real agent pipelines, where enforcement is fragmented across tools, modules, and time, and where artifact provenance is often not tracked. We operationalize a deployment failure mode for tool-using LLM agents, the \emph{provenance gap}, and study reproducible triggers for it: \emph{Context-Fractured Decomposition} (CFD), a family of cross-context multi-step jailbreaks that preserve benign-looking intermediate artifacts from an early interaction and elicit harmful behavior much later, potentially in a different agent instance or workflow stage, via individually innocuous tool actions whose risk emerges only under delayed artifact-mediated composition. We instrument the failure mode with trace-level diagnostics and outline a verifiable mitigation direction (provenance lineage tagging). Across agent-system jailbreak benchmarks, CFD improves success rates by up to 28.3 percentage points over state-of-the-art baselines, even against strong single-turn judges. Disclaimer: This paper contains examples of harmful or offensive language.

Multi-turn jailbreak attacks pose a growing threat to LLMs by exploiting conversational dynamics such as gradual escalation and cross-turn coordination. Existing defenses either rely on costly retraining -- often degrading model utility -- or apply single-turn analysis independently at each turn, failing to capture how risk accumulates along interaction trajectories. We observe that safety behavior in multi-turn interaction is trajectory-dependent: dialogue history continuously reshapes the model's conditioning context, making it insufficient to evaluate each turn in isolation. Motivated by this insight, we present THRD, the first training-free framework that explicitly models temporal risk accumulation for multi-turn jailbreak defense. THRD integrates four modules: a Turn-level Risk Assessor (TRA) for instantaneous risk estimation, a Historical Context Analyzer (HCA) for cross-turn intent escalation detection, a Response Evaluator (RE) for identifying facilitative outputs, and a Decision Module that combines these signals through a time-evolving scoring mechanism with attenuation-based modulation and trend-aware adjustment. Experiments against state-of-the-art multi-turn attacks -- including tree-search-based and multi-agent collaborative methods -- across two target models show that THRD reduces ASR to 0.2--4.0% while preserving model utility within 1.5% degradation on MMLU and GSM8K. Ablation studies confirm non-redundant module contributions and stable cross-architecture generalization. Analysis of first rejection triggers reveals that over 70% of multi-turn attacks require Turn~2 or later to detect, validating the necessity of explicit temporal aggregation.

Jailbreak prompts can trigger harmful completions on aligned LLMs, In accordance, safety steering has been proposed: test-time activation interventions that steer jailbreak activations to trigger refusal while preserving benign utility. However, existing steering methods are fundamentally supervised and tied to a static, limited training set, whereas real jailbreaks evolve and are often out-of-distributed from the training set, leading to failures on unseen attacks. In this paper, we tackle the failure on unseen jailbreaks problem, base on unsupervised latent direction discovery. We propose a bi-level adversarial training framework for zero-shot jailbreak defense. In the inner step, we simulate diverse jail-broken activations by extrapolating from refusal-state harmful-request activations via unsupervised latent direction discovery, which expands the coverage of real jailbreak activation subspaces. In the outer step, we train a potential-induced steering field to push these adversarial jailbroken states into refusal regions while keeping benign unchanged. Across three LLMs and six classical jailbreak families, our method achieves strong defense with attack success rates mostly below 5%, and rising subspace coverage throughout training helps explain the improved generalization.

Aligned models can misbehave in several ways: they are often sycophantic, fall victim to jailbreaks, or fail to include appropriate safety warnings. Consistency training is a promising new alignment paradigm to mitigate such failures by training invariants into the model using contrastive input pairs. Existing consistency training procedures generate the supervision signal once, offline, and use supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to update the model. Unfortunately, the resulting models tend to merely memorize the surface forms of the training distribution and thus generalize poorly and regress in their capabilities. We introduce On-Policy Consistency Training (OPCT), a new consistency training approach where the objective is computed over the model's own responses to prompts, supervised by itself conditioned on corresponding contrastive prompts. We evaluate OPCT on three safety axes: sycophancy, jailbreaking, and safety awareness. Across three model families, OPCT outperforms its SFT counterpart on all safety desiderata. It nearly halves the sycophancy rate relative to baseline (8.1% vs. 15.4%, compared to 11.2% for SFT). Under an adaptive per-target attacker, OPCT holds jailbreak defense success near 99% on held-out jailbreak behaviors, whereas SFT achieves 87% on average. On safety awareness, OPCT outperforms SFT in two out of three models, and matches it on the other. OPCT also largely avoids the capability regressions that SFT induces, such as a 28-point drop on MATH-500. Our results suggest that consistency training is best implemented as OPCT rather than as SFT, especially when generalization beyond the training distribution is desired.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities, they remain susceptible to sophisticated, multi-step jailbreak attacks that circumvent conventional surface-level safety alignment by exploiting the internal generation process. To address these vulnerabilities, we propose Reflector, a principled two-stage framework that internalizes self-reflection within the generation trajectory. Reflector first leverages teacher-guided generation to produce high-quality reflection data for supervised fine-tuning (SFT), establishing structured reflection patterns. It subsequently uses Reinforcement Learning (RL) with outcome-driven and reward-validity supervision to instill robust, autonomous self-reflection capabilities. Empirical results show that Reflector achieves Defense Success Rates (DSR) exceeding 90% against complex indirect attacks while generalizing robustly across diverse threat scenarios. Notably, the framework enhances both task-specific and general utility, yielding a 5.85% gain on GSM8K alongside improved performance on knowledge-intensive benchmarks. By internalizing trajectory-level safety, Reflector overcomes the fundamental limitations of surface alignment without significant computational overhead, offering an efficient and scalable solution for the development of safe and capable LLMs.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in solving complex problems by generating structured, step-by-step reasoning content. However, exposing a model's internal reasoning process introduces additional safety risks; for example, recent studies show that LRMs are more vulnerable to jailbreak attacks than standard LLMs. In this paper, we investigate jailbreak attacks on LRMs and reveal that the attack success rate (ASR) is closely correlated with LRMs' attention patterns. Specifically, successful jailbreaks tend to assign lower attention to harmful tokens in the input prompt, while allocating higher attention to those tokens in the reasoning content. Motivated by this finding, we propose a novel jailbreak method for LRMs that leverages reinforcement learning (RL) to enhance attack effectiveness, explicitly incorporating attention signals into the reward function design. In addition, we introduce diverse persuasion strategies to enrich the RL action space, which consistently improves the ASR. Extensive experiments on five open-source and closed-source LRMs across three benchmarks demonstrate that our method achieves substantially higher ASR, outperforming existing approaches in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and transferability.

Jailbreak attacks on large models have drawn growing attention due to their close ties to societal safety. This work identifies a practical yet unexplored jailbreak scenario, the wide-net-casting scenario, where an adversary can query a group of large models instead of a single one to elicit harmful outputs. Our analysis reveals substantial yet previously overlooked safety risks under this scenario. As a key part of our analysis, we further develop a novel jailbreak method tailored to the wide-net-casting scenario. With this tailored method, the jailbreak success rate can even reach 100% in some experiments when targeting the large models without additional safeguards, exposing wide-net-casting as a distinct, high-risk scenario that warrants attention in future evaluation and defense research.

This paper proposes a guaranteed defense method for large language models (LLMs) to safeguard against jailbreaking attacks. Drawing inspiration from the denoised-smoothing approach in the adversarial defense domain, we propose a novel smoothing-based defense method, termed Disrupt-and-Rectify Smoothing (DR-Smoothing). Specifically, we integrate a two-stage prompt processing scheme-first disrupting the input prompt, then rectifying it-into the conventional smoothing defense framework. This disrupt-and-rectify approach improves upon previous disrupt-only approaches by restoring out-of-distribution disrupted prompts to an in-distribution form, thereby reducing the risk of unpredictable LLM behavior. In addition, this two-stage scheme offers a distinct advantage in striking a balance between harmlessness and helpfulness in jailbreaking defense. Notably, we present a theoretical analysis for generic smoothing framework, offering a tight bound for the defense success probability and the requirements on the disruption strength. Our approach can defend against both token-level and prompt-level jailbreaking attacks, under both established and adaptive attacking scenarios. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach surpasses current state-of-the-art defense methods in terms of both harmlessness and helpfulness.

As language model safeguards become more robust, attackers are pushed toward developing increasingly complex jailbreaks. Prior work has found that this complexity imposes a "jailbreak tax" that degrades the target model's task performance. We show that this tax scales inversely with model capability and that the most advanced jailbreaks effectively yield no reduction in model capabilities. Evaluating 28 jailbreaks on five benchmarks across Claude models ranging in capability from Haiku 4.5 to Opus 4.6, we find Haiku 4.5 loses an average of 33.1% on benchmark performance when jailbroken, while Opus 4.6 at max thinking effort loses only 7.7%. We also observe that across all models, reasoning-heavy tasks display considerably more degradation than knowledge-recall tasks. Finally, Boundary Point Jailbreaking, currently the strongest jailbreak against deployed classifiers, achieves near-perfect classifier evasion with near-zero degradation across safeguarded models. We recommend that safety cases for frontier models should not rely on a meaningful capability degradation from jailbreaks.

Safety trained large language models (LLMs) can often be induced to answer harmful requests through jailbreak prompts. Because we lack a robust understanding of why LLMs are susceptible to jailbreaks, future frontier models operating more autonomously in higher-stakes settings may similarly be vulnerable to such attacks. Prior work has studied jailbreak success by examining the model's intermediate representations, identifying directions in this space that causally encode concepts like harmfulness and refusal. Then, they globally explain all jailbreak attacks as attempting to reduce or strengthen these concepts (e.g., reduce harmfulness). However, different jailbreak strategies may succeed by strengthening or suppressing different intermediate concepts, and the same jailbreak strategy may not work for different harmful request categories (e.g., violence vs. cyberattack); thus, we seek to give a local explanation -- i.e., why did this specific jailbreak succeed? To address this gap, we introduce LOCA, a method that gives Local, CAusal explanations of jailbreak success by identifying a minimal set of interpretable, intermediate representation changes that causally induce model refusal on an otherwise successful jailbreak request. We evaluate LOCA on harmful original-jailbreak pairs from a large jailbreak benchmark across Gemma and Llama chat models, comparing against prior methods adapted to this setting. LOCA can successfully induce refusal by making, on average, six interpretable changes; prior work routinely fails to achieve refusal even after 20 changes. LOCA is a step toward mechanistic, local explanations of jailbreak success in LLMs. Code to be released.

Jailbreak attacks remain a persistent threat to large language model safety. We propose Context-Conditioned Delta Steering (CC-Delta), an SAE-based defense that identifies jailbreak-relevant sparse features by comparing token-level representations of the same harmful request with and without jailbreak context. Using paired harmful/jailbreak prompts, CC-Delta selects features via statistical testing and applies inference-time mean-shift steering in SAE latent space. Across four aligned instruction-tuned models and twelve jailbreak attacks, CC-Delta achieves comparable or better safety-utility tradeoffs than baseline defenses operating in dense latent space. In particular, our method clearly outperforms dense mean-shift steering on all four models, and particularly against out-of-distribution attacks, showing that steering in sparse SAE feature space offers advantages over steering in dense activation space for jailbreak mitigation. Our results suggest off-the-shelf SAEs trained for interpretability can be repurposed as practical jailbreak defenses without task-specific training.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are powering a growing share of interactive web applications, yet remain vulnerable to misuse and harm. Prior jailbreak research has largely focused on single-turn prompts, whereas real harassment often unfolds over multi-turn interactions. In this work, we present the Online Harassment Agentic Benchmark consisting of: (i) a synthetic multi-turn harassment conversation dataset, (ii) a multi-agent (e.g., harasser, victim) simulation informed by repeated game theory, (iii) three jailbreak methods attacking agents across memory, planning, and fine-tuning, and (iv) a mixed-methods evaluation framework. We utilize two prominent LLMs, LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct (open-source) and Gemini-2.0-flash (closed-source). Our results show that jailbreak tuning makes harassment nearly guaranteed with an attack success rate of 95.78--96.89% vs. 57.25--64.19% without tuning in Llama, and 99.33% vs. 98.46% without tuning in Gemini, while sharply reducing refusal rate to 1-2% in both models. The most prevalent toxic behaviors are Insult with 84.9--87.8% vs. 44.2--50.8% without tuning, and Flaming with 81.2--85.1% vs. 31.5--38.8% without tuning, indicating weaker guardrails compared to sensitive categories such as sexual or racial harassment. Qualitative evaluation further reveals that attacked agents reproduce human-like aggression profiles, such as Machiavellian/psychopathic patterns under planning, and narcissistic tendencies with memory. Counterintuitively, closed-source and open-source models exhibit distinct escalation trajectories across turns, with closed-source models showing significant vulnerability. Overall, our findings show that multi-turn and theory-grounded attacks not only succeed at high rates but also mimic human-like harassment dynamics, motivating the development of robust safety guardrails to ultimately keep online platforms safe and responsible.