Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research details
Back to research findings
LMVD-ID: 4711febd
Paper published February 1, 2025
Entry analyzed March 4, 2025
Paper-reported evidence
Confidence: Source-linked

The LMVD-ID is an internal research identifier, not an official CVE identifier.

Reasoning-Augmented Jailbreak

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to multi-turn jailbreak attacks leveraging the model's reasoning capabilities. The attack, RACE, reformulates harmful queries into benign reasoning tasks, exploiting the…

BibTeX citation

Paper-evaluated models(9)

DeepSeek R1, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking +6 more
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • GLM 4 9B Chat
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • o1
  • Qwen 2 7B Instruct

Description

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to multi-turn jailbreak attacks leveraging the model's reasoning capabilities. The attack, RACE, reformulates harmful queries into benign reasoning tasks, exploiting the LLM's ability to perform complex reasoning to ultimately generate unsafe content. This bypasses standard safety mechanisms designed to prevent the generation of harmful responses.

Examples

See https://github.com/NY1024/RACE (opens in a new tab). The repository contains the RACE framework and examples of multi-turn conversations used to successfully jailbreak various LLMs.

Impact

Successful exploitation leads to the generation of unsafe content by the LLM, including but not limited to instructions for harmful activities, hate speech, and other malicious outputs. This undermines the safety mechanisms implemented in the models and poses significant risks to users. The success rate reported in the research reaches up to 96% against various LLMs and 92% against leading commercial models.

Affected Systems

Multiple LLMs are affected, including open-source models (Gemma, Qwen, GLM) and closed-source models (GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking, OpenAI o1, DeepSeek R1). The vulnerability is likely present in other LLMs with similar reasoning capabilities.

Mitigation Steps

  • Strengthen safety mechanisms beyond simple keyword filtering to detect and prevent reasoning-based attacks.
  • Develop robust models that can identify and resist manipulation of their reasoning processes.
  • Implement a layered security approach with multiple safety checks at different stages of the query processing pipeline.
  • Develop more sophisticated detection methods to identify these types of attacks, including potential analysis of the information gain during conversation.
  • Conduct rigorous red-teaming and adversarial testing to identify and address vulnerabilities before deployment (this is NOT specific, just a generic advice based on the paper - the paper itself does not provide specific mitigation steps for this problem).

Research context and confidence

Evidence and verification
Paper-reported; independent reproduction is not documented.
Primary research source linked.
Severity
Not rated by this catalog.
Source and publication type
arXiv · Research preprint.
Peer-review status is not provided by this source.
Author and publication status
Author metadata is not stored; see the primary paper.
Threat model and attacker access
Black-box model, service, or application access.
Related deployment categories
No related deployment category is classified.
Taxonomy labels only; paper-specific deployment prerequisites are not inferred.
Affected systems
Multiple LLMs are affected, including open-source models (Gemma, Qwen, GLM) and closed-source models (GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking, OpenAI o1, DeepSeek R1). The vulnerability is likely…

Research Paper

Reasoning-Augmented Conversation for Multi-Turn Jailbreak Attacks on Large Language Models

Primary source: arXiv. Findings are reported by the cited research and have not been independently verified.

View Paper

Evidence

This entry is based on a primary research source. Its findings are paper-reported; independent reproduction and verification are not claimed.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11054