Impact
Security research involving user or training data privacy
15 matching entries out of 114 in this category
Untrusted document images can redirect vision-language agents across instruction and tool-authorization boundaries. Repeat-After-Me evaluates six victim models on constructed document tasks.
Source: arXiv
Document-image PII detection can miss identifiers despite improving average localization scores. LeakageBench evaluates 500 pages with 11,954 annotations.
Source: arXiv
Mobile Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating under the "Screen-as-Interface" paradigm are vulnerable to visual indirect prompt injection and state desynchronization. Agents that rely on unstructured visual data (screenshots) and Accessibility Service APIs to perceive the environment lack a mechanism to distinguish between trusted system UI elements and untrusted content (e.g., web pages, emails, or malicious overlays). An attacker can inject visual cues, fake notifications, or hidden…
Source: arXiv
Mobile LLM-based agents (including Mobile-Agent-E, AppAgent, AutoDroid, and others) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks delivered via untrusted third-party mobile channels, such as in-app advertisements, system notifications, and embedded webviews. These agents utilize Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to perceive the device state via screenshots or accessibility trees. The vulnerability exists because the agents concatenate the user's prompt ($p$) with the environmental…
Source: arXiv
Large Vision-Language Model (LVLM) driven mobile agents, such as Mobile-Agent-E, are vulnerable to a touch-guided visual prompt injection attack. This vulnerability allows an attacker to hijack the agent's execution flow via a malicious Android application interface without requiring system-level privileges. The attack leverages "Non-privileged Perception Compromise," where a visual payload is embedded in the application UI and conditionally rendered only during agent-specific interaction…
Source: arXiv
Large Language Model (LLM)-powered GUI agents exhibit a vulnerability to deceptive interface designs (dark patterns) due to goal-driven optimization and procedural myopia. When executing natural language instructions on web interfaces, these agents consistently prioritize minimizing steps and achieving task completion over user safety or privacy. Agents frequently recognize manipulative elements—such as pre-selected consent checkboxes, hidden costs, or trick questions—in their internal…
Source: arXiv
Large Language Models (LLMs), including proprietary and open-weight state-of-the-art systems, are vulnerable to automated, self-evolving adversarial attacks orchestrated by multi-agent frameworks. The vulnerability exists because current safety alignment strategies (RLHF, static safety filters) fail to generalize against the "SafeEvalAgent" attack vector. In this vector, an "Analyst" agent analyzes model refusals to iteratively refine attack strategies, while a "Specialist" agent grounds these…
Source: arXiv
Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT-4o, LLaMA-3, and GPT-3.5-Turbo, are vulnerable to multimodal prompt injection attacks. These models fail to distinguish between system-level instructions and user-provided content within the context window. Attackers can exploit this by embedding malicious instructions in direct text, indirect sources (such as third-party webpages or PDFs), or visual inputs (images). Successful exploitation results in the model prioritizing the injected adversarial…
Source: arXiv
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) utilizing Transformer-based visual encoders (specifically CLIP and EVA-CLIP variants) are vulnerable to a targeted adversarial attack dubbed "VIP" (Visual Information Protection). This vulnerability allows an attacker to manipulate the model's internal attention mechanism to create a "blind spot" within a specific Region of Interest (ROI) of an input image. By optimizing an additive image perturbation ($\delta$), the attack minimizes the attention weights and…
Source: arXiv
Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to "Secondary Risks," a class of non-adversarial failures where the model generates harmful, misleading, or unsafe outputs in response to benign, non-malicious user prompts. Unlike jailbreaks which require adversarial inputs, secondary risks arise from imperfect generalization and alignment failures during standard interactions. This vulnerability manifests primarily in two primitives: 1. Excessive…
Source: arXiv