Attack Type
Methods for bypassing model safety measures
91 matching entries out of 704 in this category
Controlled safety-tuning experiments link boilerplate refusal statements to unnecessary refusals of benign requests. Request-specific rationales improve benign compliance, with benchmark-dependent safety tradeoffs.
Source: arXiv
An issue in large language models (LLMs) with white-box weight access allows attackers to permanently bypass safety guardrails via Weight Orthogonalization (WO). By calculating a model's "refusal vector"—the mean-difference vector between harmful and harmless instruction activations in the residual stream—an attacker can orthogonalize the model's weights to prevent it from writing to this refusal direction ($W^{\prime}\leftarrow W-rr^{\intercal}W$). Unlike jailbreak-tuning or data poisoning…
Source: arXiv
A compositional vulnerability in modular Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety alignment by distributing malicious weight updates across multiple Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) adapters (e.g., LoRA). The malicious adapters are anchored to valid functional subspaces (e.g., math, coding) and exhibit benign behavior when evaluated in isolation, successfully evading standard unit-centric safety scans and static weight-space defenses. However, when a user linearly…
Source: arXiv
Generative reward models deployed as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) evaluators contain a logic bypass vulnerability where superficial "master key" inputs trigger false positive rewards regardless of actual response quality. Instead of evaluating the candidate's output, large judge models are inadvertently triggered by specific token sequences to solve the prompt independently. This allows malicious actors or policy models undergoing reinforcement learning to consistently game the reward signal by…
Source: arXiv
A malicious finetuning vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) that process zero-width Unicode characters. An attacker can bypass training-data moderation filters and inference-time safety guardrails by finetuning the model to decode and encode invisible-character steganography. By injecting target malicious interactions encoded in a base-4 representation of zero-width characters alongside benign plaintext cover text during supervised finetuning (SFT), the model learns to process…
Source: arXiv
An adversarial fine-tuning vulnerability exists in LLMs protected by text-based safety classifiers (such as Anthropic's Constitutional Classifiers). By utilizing a two-stage curriculum learning combined with hybrid RL+SFT (GRPO), an attacker can fine-tune a model to communicate using a minimal substitution cipher (replacing only 7-8 high-frequency characters) disguised within benign technical templates (e.g., forensic logs with 0x prefixes). This "Trojan-Speak" methodology bypasses text-level…
Source: arXiv
Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a vulnerability termed "chunky post-training," where the model learns spurious correlations between incidental prompt features (e.g., formatting styles, specific vocabulary, sentence structure) and specific behavioral modes (e.g., refusal, code generation, rebuttal) present in distinct chunks of post-training data. This results in behavioral mis-routing during inference, where benign inputs sharing surface-level features with restricted or specialized…
Source: arXiv
Discrete image tokenizers are vulnerable to unsupervised embedding-space adversarial attacks. Attackers can apply $\ell_p$-bounded perturbations to an input image to maximize the $\ell_2$ distance of the pre-quantization continuous embeddings produced by the tokenizer's vision encoder. This forces the vector quantizer to cross discrete cell boundaries and assign incorrect codebook vectors, fundamentally altering the resulting token sequence. Because the attack targets the pre-quantization…
Source: arXiv
Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned via standard Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) or Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) are vulnerable to "Shallow Safety" bypass attacks, specifically Middle Filling (MF) and Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) attacks. These models frequently rely on refusal mechanisms triggered solely by the initial tokens of a prompt. By embedding malicious instructions after a benign context (prefilling) or utilizing suffix optimization, attackers can induce the…
Source: arXiv
Reinforcement learning (RL) based post-training for explicit chain-of-thought reasoning (e.g., GRPO) in Multimodal Large Reasoning Models (MLRMs) inadvertently degrades safety alignment, rendering the models highly vulnerable to multimodal jailbreak attacks. The vulnerability is caused by "conditional coverage collapse" during the initial phases of chain-of-thought generation. Under adversarial conditioning (text or image), the reasoning policy assigns vanishing probability mass to safe…
Source: arXiv