Divide, Consult, Conquer: Capability Laundering Through Aligned LLMs
Attack shows unaligned orchestrators can launder capabilities from aligned frontier LLMs via benign subtask consultation, raising Gemma-4-31B CBRN rubric score from 62.3 to 83.1.
The paper introduces capability laundering, where a weaker unaligned model decomposes a harmful task into benign-looking subproblems, queries a stronger aligned model on each, and recombines answers locally, bypassing per-interaction safety evaluations. Evaluation used GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, and Grok-4.3 as consultants to four local orchestrators on CyBench, BountyBench, and CBRN tasks. On CyBench, Gemma-4-31B recovered 8/14 candidate tasks with GPT-5.5 and 7/9 with Opus, while Muse-Glimmer-30B recovered none. Across an eight-step hypothetical bioweapon attack chain, consultation raised Gemma-4-31B's mean rubric score from 62.3 to 83.1, exposing a gap in defenses that only refuse complete harmful tasks.
- Capability laundering splits harmful tasks into individually benign subproblems
- No single consultant response constitutes the harmful task
- GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, and Grok-4.3 tested as consultants
- Gemma-4-31B CBRN rubric score rises from 62.3 to 83.1
- Per-interaction refusals fail to stop capability transfer and composition
Full article191 words · extracted from arxiv.org · click to collapse
Language model safety is typically evaluated one interaction at a time. We show that a weaker, unaligned model can split a harmful task into benign-looking subproblems, consult a stronger aligned model independently on each, and combine the answers locally. We call this attack capability laundering. Unlike a jailbreak, no single response is a harmful task. We measure consultation-aided uplift using tasks that a raw frontier model solves, the aligned frontier refuses, and the unassisted orchestrator fails. We evaluate GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, and Grok-4.3 as consultants to four local orchestrators on CyBench, BountyBench, and harmful CBRN requests. On CyBench, Gemma-4-31B recovers 8/14 candidates with GPT-5.5 and 7/9 with Opus, compared with 2/21 and 4/15 for Gemma-4-12B. On BountyBench, Gemma-4-31B recovers 3/9 and 2/3 candidates, while Muse-Glimmer-30B recovers none of 22 and 13. For CBRN, we measure uplift across eight steps of a hypothetical bioweapon attack chain and find that consultation raises Gemma-4-31B's mean rubric score from 62.3 to 83.1 on a 100-point rubric scale. These results expose a gap in current defenses: refusing a harmful task does not prevent frontier capabilities from being transferred and composed across many individually permitted interactions.
Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.15383