Impact
Issues affecting data confidentiality and integrity
21 matching entries out of 171 in this category
Third-party fine-tuning adapters may contain backdoors. Z-PEFT screens adapter weights using spectral features, evaluated on PADBench's 13,300 adapters.
Source: arXiv
The paper presents a concrete, reproducible security evaluation in which attacker-controlled instructions embedded in retrieved external content steer stateful, tool-calling LLM agents toward unauthorized actions. It adapts white-box GCG and black-box TAP to AgentDojo and evaluates single-task and task-universal attacks across 80 task pairs in four domains. The reported results show that semantic black-box optimization can discover functional prompt injections more effectively than…
Source: arXiv
SilentRetrieval describes a specific RAG corpus-integrity vulnerability: an attacker able to add a topically relevant document to a retrieval corpus can make that document rank highly and influence the generated answer while remaining fluent enough to evade simple perplexity checks. The paper evaluates a two-stage method combining retrieval-oriented document optimization with context-adaptive claim integration. A safe defensive reproduction is to use only isolated benchmark corpora and inert…
Source: arXiv
Backdoor-based fingerprinting mechanisms used for Intellectual Property (IP) protection in Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to evasion when deployed in model ensemble configurations. The vulnerability arises because fingerprint triggers elicit specific, high-probability tokens or responses in a protected model that are statistically improbable in unprotected or differently-fingerprinted auxiliary models. Attackers can exploit this statistical discrepancy without accessing model…
Source: arXiv
Large Language Models (LLMs) employing safety mechanisms based on supervised fine-tuning and preference alignment exhibit a vulnerability to "steering" attacks. Maliciously crafted prompts or input manipulations can exploit representation vectors within the model to either bypass censorship ("refusal-compliance vector") or suppress the model's reasoning process ("thought suppression vector"), resulting in the generation of unintended or harmful outputs. This vulnerability is demonstrated…
Source: arXiv
The Virus attack method enables attackers to bypass guardrail moderation on fine-tuning data, leading to a significant degradation of safety alignment in large language models (LLMs). This is achieved through a dual-objective data optimization strategy that crafts harmful data undetectable by the guardrail while maximizing their effectiveness in compromising the victim model's safety.
Source: arXiv
Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to attacks that generate obfuscated activations, bypassing latent-space defenses such as sparse autoencoders, representation probing, and latent out-of-distribution (OOD) detection. Attackers can manipulate model inputs or training data to produce outputs exhibiting malicious behavior while remaining undetected by these defenses. This occurs because the models can represent harmful behavior through diverse activation patterns, allowing attackers to…
Source: arXiv
A vulnerability exists in large language models (LLMs) where targeted bitwise corruptions in model parameters can induce a "jailbroken" state, causing the model to generate harmful responses without input modification. Fewer than 25 bit-flips are sufficient to achieve this in many cases. The vulnerability stems from the susceptibility of the model's memory representation to fault injection attacks.
Source: arXiv
Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks that manipulate attention scores to redirect the model's focus away from safety protocols. The AttnGCG attack method increases the attention score on adversarial suffixes within the input prompt, causing the model to prioritize the malicious content over safety guidelines, leading to the generation of harmful outputs.
Source: arXiv
Large Language Models (LLMs) employing gradient-ascent based unlearning methods are vulnerable to a dynamic unlearning attack (DUA). DUA leverages optimized adversarial suffixes appended to prompts, reintroducing unlearned knowledge even without access to the unlearned model's parameters. This allows an attacker to recover sensitive information previously designated for removal.
Source: arXiv