API Vulnerabilities

The VILTA (VLM-in-the-Loop Trajectory Adversary) framework is vulnerable to Prompt Injection and Data Poisoning via un-sanitized scene representation inputs. The system integrates a Vision-Language Model (Gemini-2.5-Flash) into a closed-loop reinforcement learning environment, feeding it Bird’s-Eye-View (BEV) imagery alongside text-based vehicle dynamics data (e.g., position, speed, and risk_category) to generate challenging driving trajectories. An attacker who can manipulate the input…

Commercial Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) integrated systems are vulnerable to a "Dual Steganography" jailbreak paradigm (referred to as Odysseus). The vulnerability arises from the reliance of safety filters on the assumption that malicious content must be explicitly visible in the input or output modalities (text or image). Attackers can bypass these filters by encoding malicious queries into binary matrices and embedding them into benign-looking images using steganographic encoders…

A Denial-of-Service (DoS) vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) inference services where specially crafted input prompts can trigger excessively long or infinite generation loops ("infinite thinking"). This vulnerability, identified as "ThinkTrap," utilizes derivative-free optimization (CMA-ES) within a continuous surrogate embedding space to circumvent the discrete nature of token inputs. By optimizing a low-dimensional latent vector and projecting it to token sequences, an…

Reasoning-specialized Large Language Models (LLMs) that utilize Chain-of-Thought (CoT) processes are vulnerable to reasoning-exploitation jailbreaks. Attackers can bypass standard safety alignments (such as RLHF) by using adaptive multi-turn interactions or semantic transformations to induce the model to generate intermediate reasoning steps that "rationalize" or "contextualize" a harmful request. Because current alignment techniques often fail to scale linearly with reasoning depth, forcing…

A safety bypass vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multi-Modal Models (LVLMs) that expose a "Prefix Completion" parameter in their inference APIs (e.g., echo or prefix parameters). The vulnerability exploits the model's autoregressive nature, where the model prioritizes local coherence with a user-supplied output prefix over global safety alignment (RLHF) or system instructions. By supplying a prefix that establishes a hostile narrative or intent (e.g., "My actions are as…

A black-box guardrail reverse-engineering vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) serving systems that employ output filtering mechanisms. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to replicate the proprietary decision-making policy and rule sets of the target's safety guardrail without direct access to model parameters. This is achieved through a technique termed Guardrail Reverse-engineering Attack (GRA), which utilizes a reinforcement learning framework combined with genetic…

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, LLaMA-2-13B, Mistral-7B, and Phi-3.5-mini, are vulnerable to Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) adversarial prompt injections that undermine factual recall. Termed the "$\chi$mera" (Chimera) attack framework, this vulnerability exists when an attacker intercepts and modifies user queries (e.g., via malicious browser extensions, compromised frontends, or proxy middleware) before they reach the victim model. By appending adversarial…

Large Language Model (LLM) fine-tuning interfaces are vulnerable to a semantic obfuscation attack that bypasses multi-stage safety defenses, including pre-upload data filtering, defensive fine-tuning algorithms, and post-training safety audits. The vulnerability exploits a "self-auditing" flaw where the provider uses the target model (or a similar variant) to screen training data. Attackers can submit a small dataset (approx. 500 samples) where harmful answers are obfuscated using a…

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically variants of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, OLMo-2, and Llama-4, are vulnerable to accelerated adaptive adversarial attacks due to excessive information leakage in observable output signals. When these models expose "thinking processes" (Chain-of-Thought traces) or token-level log-probabilities (logits) to the end user, they leak significant mutual information $I(Z;T)$ regarding the model's safety state or hidden instructions. This leakage allows adaptive attack…

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) that support fine-tuning, allowing an attacker to bypass safety alignments using a small, benign dataset. The attack, "Attack via Overfitting," is a two-stage process. In Stage 1, the model is fine-tuned on a small set of benign questions (e.g., 10) paired with identical, repetitive refusal answers. This induces an overfitted state where the model learns to refuse all prompts, creating a sharp minimum in the loss landscape and making it…