Chain Vulnerabilities

AI code agents are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks that cause them to generate or complete malicious code. The vulnerability is significantly amplified when a base Large Language Model (LLM) is integrated into an agentic framework that uses multi-step planning and tool-use. Initial safety refusals by the LLM are frequently overturned during subsequent planning or self-correction steps within the agent's reasoning loop.

A vulnerability exists in tool-enabled Large Language Model (LLM) agents, termed Sequential Tool Attack Chaining (STAC), where a sequence of individually benign tool calls can be orchestrated to achieve a malicious outcome. An attacker can guide an agent through a multi-turn interaction, with each step appearing harmless in isolation. Safety mechanisms that evaluate individual prompts or actions fail to detect the threat because the malicious intent is distributed across the sequence and only becomes apparent from the cumulative effect of the entire tool chain, typically at the final execution step. This allows the bypass of safety guardrails to execute harmful actions in the agent's environment.

A vulnerability, termed "Content Concretization," exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) wherein safety filters can be bypassed by iteratively refining a malicious request. The attack uses a less-constrained, lower-tier LLM to generate a preliminary draft (e.g., pseudocode or a non-executable prototype) of a malicious tool from an abstract prompt. This "concretized" draft is then passed to a more capable, higher-tier LLM. The higher-tier LLM, when prompted to refine or complete the existing draft, is significantly more likely to generate the full malicious, executable content than if it had received the initial abstract prompt directly. This exploits a weakness in safety alignment where models are more permissive in extending existing content compared to generating harmful content from scratch.

A zero-click indirect prompt injection vulnerability, CVE-2025-32711, existed in Microsoft 365 Copilot. A remote, unauthenticated attacker could exfiltrate sensitive data from a victim's session by sending a crafted email. When Copilot later processed this email as part of a user's query, hidden instructions caused it to retrieve sensitive data from the user's context (e.g., other emails, documents) and embed it into a URL. The attack chain involved bypassing Microsoft's XPIA prompt injection classifier, evading link redaction filters using reference-style Markdown, and abusing a trusted Microsoft Teams proxy domain to bypass the client-side Content Security Policy (CSP), resulting in automatic data exfiltration without any user interaction.

A vulnerability exists in multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) where an attacker can bypass safety alignments by exploiting the model's ethical reasoning capabilities. The attack, named TRIAL (Trolley-problem Reasoning for Interactive Attack Logic), frames a harmful request within a multi-turn ethical dilemma modeled on the trolley problem. The harmful action is presented as the "lesser of two evils" necessary to prevent a catastrophic outcome, compelling the model to engage in utilitarian justification. This creates a conflict between the model's deontological safety rules (e.g., "do not generate harmful content") and the consequentialist logic of the scenario. Through a series of iterative, context-aware queries, the attacker progressively reinforces the model's commitment to the harmful path, leading it to generate content it would normally refuse. The vulnerability is paradoxically more effective against models with more advanced reasoning abilities.

A vulnerability exists in aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) where a harmful instruction can be obfuscated through a multi-step formalization process, bypassing safety mechanisms. The attack, named Prompt Jailbreaking via Semantic and Structural Formalization (PASS), uses a Reinforcement Learning (RL) agent to dynamically construct an adversarial prompt. The agent learns to apply a sequence of actions—such as symbolic abstraction, logical encoding, mathematical representation, metaphorical transformation, and strategic decomposition—to an initial harmful query. This iterative process transforms the query into a representation that is semantically equivalent in intent but structurally unrecognizable to the model's safety filters, resulting in the generation of prohibited content. The attack is adaptive and does not rely on fixed templates.

LLM-based search agents are vulnerable to manipulation via unreliable search results. An attacker can craft a website containing malicious content (e.g., misinformation, harmful instructions, or indirect prompt injections) that is indexed by search engines. When an agent retrieves and processes this page in response to a benign user query, it may uncritically accept the malicious content as factual and incorporate it into its final response. This allows the agent to be used as a vector for spreading harmful content, executing hidden commands, or promoting biased narratives, as the agents often fail to adequately verify the credibility of their retrieved sources. The vulnerability is demonstrated across five risk categories: Misinformation, Harmful Output, Bias Inducing, Advertisement Promotion, and Indirect Prompt Injection.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) can be instructed via a single system prompt to act as autonomous adversarial agents. These agents engage in multi-turn persuasive dialogues to systematically bypass the safety mechanisms of target language models. The LRM autonomously plans and executes the attack by initiating a benign conversation and gradually escalating the harmfulness of its requests, thereby circumventing defenses that are not robust to sustained, context-aware persuasive attacks. This creates a vulnerability where more advanced LRMs can be weaponized to compromise the alignment of other models, a dynamic described as "alignment regression".