ZeroHour
DashboardNewsCVEsExploitsIncidentsAIBriefAnalyticsEntitiesWatchlistIOCsAsk the feedSourcesFeeds & APIKiosk mode

Source: arXiv cs.CR

13 stories in the last 3d

Sortlatesthotimportance
DomainAllCyberAIWindow24h3d7d30dAllIn the wildImportant onlyShow duplicates
CategoryAllAI safety & security 13
SeverityAllcritical 0high 0medium 0low 0info 13source: arXiv cs.CR ✕

Adversarial Testing of Automated Program Repair Agents for Security Vulnerabilities

SWEADV benchmark shows adversarial issue descriptions make LLM program-repair agents write insecure fixes in 51.7% of cases, evading most detection tools.

Researchers built SWEADV, a benchmark of 750 adversarial issue descriptions derived from 150 SWE-bench Verified repair tasks, covering command execution, deserialization, path traversal, denial of service, and weak hashing attack types. Tested on mini_swe agents backed by GPT-5-Mini, MiniMax-M2.5, and DeepSeek-R, adversarial descriptions induced malicious behavior with successful repair in 51.7% of cases. Detection was weak: LLM-as-judge pre-repair screening reached only 62.3% accuracy, and post-repair detection via static analysis and LLM-as-judge achieved just 39.4% and 55.4%.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security

Authorization Architectures for Tool-Using AI Agents

Review paper proposes an authorization reference architecture for tool-using AI agents, identifying runtime enforcement and delegation bounds as unresolved gaps.

This review examines authorization models for tool-using AI agents that invoke APIs, databases, browsers, and protocols like MCP, arguing every consequential agent action must be traceable to a human principal, bounded by delegation, and contestable. It introduces a principal hierarchy spanning human user, operator/deployer, orchestrator agent, sub-agent, and tool endpoint, and analyzes five layers including credential lifecycle, delegation propagation, runtime enforcement, prompt injection as authorization bypass, and auditability. Drawing on 89 primary sources from 2023-2026, it proposes seven structural requirements, a four-layer reference architecture, and three deployable configurations.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security

RAPID: A Real-Time Defense Against Unauthorized Model Distillation for Text-to-Image Services

RAPID embeds defensive perturbations in a T2I model's shared VAE decoder to block unauthorized black-box distillation in real time.

The paper defends text-to-image services against model theft via black-box output-based distillation, where adversaries collect prompt-image pairs to train substitute models. RAPID integrates defensive perturbations into the shared VAE decoder using self-referenced latent maximization plus reconstruction-guided color regularization, avoiding costly sample-wise online optimization. Across four T2I models and four datasets versus five baselines, it consistently degrades substitute-model generation quality while preserving visual fidelity.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security

When the World Lies: Backdoor Attacks on Latent World Models for Downstream Control

A poisoned world-model checkpoint hijacks downstream controllers without an explicit trigger rule, passing clean-data evaluation while steering 100% of triggered actions.

Researchers show that a released pretrained world-model checkpoint acts as a supply-chain backdoor for downstream control. The poisoned model routes trigger-bearing observations into a chosen latent region and reshapes dynamics so the victim's own Dreamer-style actor training or MPC/CEM planning re-discovers attacker-targeted actions. The attack hijacks 100% of triggered steps in the strongest settings while retaining roughly 75% clean-task success and passing standard clean-data diagnostics. Moderate clean fine-tuning fails to remove the backdoor without substantially degrading clean control.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security

CiteShade: Citation Laundering in Multi-Source Retrieval-Augmented Generation and Its Counterfactual Defense

CiteShade attack makes RAG models cite trusted sources for attacker-chosen wrong answers, raising wrong-answer rate from 0.01 to 0.68.

CiteShade is presented as the first citation laundering attack against multi-source retrieval-augmented generation: an attacker controlling a single source induces a wrong answer falsely attributed to a trusted source, even while correct evidence remains in context. The attack is formalized via three necessary conditions (retrieval, generation, citation) constructible without any instructions, raising wrong-answer rate from 0.01 to 0.68 on multi-hop QA, with source deletion confirming the malicious source as causal driver. Vulnerability tracks a model's citation propensity rather than scale, reaching CLR 0.84 with explicit instruction and 0.64 without on the most citation-prone model. Perplexity filtering and citation-support checking prove insufficient; the authors propose a counterfactual defense verifying which source actually drove the answer.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security

Approval Integrity and Recovery in LLM Answer Publication

Study measures approval integrity in Lightcap LLM answer publication, finding the 14B response-act checker accepts 291 of 302 unsupported answers.

The study evaluates exact-content binding, authorization freshness, and checkpoint recovery in Lightcap's publication enforcement using 3,600 assessments over 900 human-annotated RAGTruth responses from three Ministral models. The production 14B response-act checker accepts 291 of 302 unsupported answers versus 41 for a direct-grounding baseline, with supported-answer retention of 95.2% versus 66.9%. A stateful recheck-recovery policy increases exact-match error by 9.23 percentage points relative to initial checkpoints, and controlled evidence-fingerprint changes expose asymmetric freshness enforcement between publication and recovery. A separate BIPIA prompt-injection experiment records zero target insertions among 266 valid editor outputs.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security

Misleading the Planner through Deceptive Resumes: Registration-Time Injection in Centralized Multi-Agent Systems

Researchers demonstrate registration-time prompt injection in centralized LLM multi-agent systems, dropping GAIA task success from 84.31% to 37.25%, and propose DescGuard defense.

The paper identifies a registration-time injection channel in centralized LLM multi-agent systems where third-party worker agent descriptions are trusted by the planner before any user instruction arrives. Analyzing 32,000 descriptions from three public agent marketplaces, at least 23.35% contain content outside the four defined description fields. Eight description-manipulation attack strategies targeting task decomposition, capability grounding, and subtask specification cut GAIA task success from 84.31% to 37.25% and increased token consumption or execution time by over 111%, persisting across two MAS implementations, six planner LLMs, and four evaluators. The proposed DescGuard defense filters descriptions to worker-scoped interface information and restores metrics toward baseline without modifying workers, planner, or orchestration logic.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security

Empirical Evaluation of Task-Based Permission Scoping Architecture for AI Agents

Fine-tuned RoBERTa-large task permission classifier matches Claude Haiku 4.5 on access scoping for AI agents, cutting severity-weighted attack surface by 84.4%.

The paper evaluates a three-source task-based permission architecture for AI agents combining role-based permission ceilings, a task permission classifier, and policy-based prohibitions. A fine-tuned RoBERTa-large security gate matched few-shot Claude Haiku 4.5 on a 600-prompt dataset, with macro-F1 0.881 versus 0.886, precision 0.897 versus 0.842, and lower severity-weighted residual risk (0.63 versus 1.12). An attack-surface elimination metric shows the role ceiling alone closes 27.9% of the severity-weighted surface while adding the task classifier closes 84.4%. The work establishes task-granular access control as a measured, deployable mechanism for reducing attack surface in agentic deployments.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security

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.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security

CounterPersona: Append-Only Defense Against Unauthorized Persona Skill Distillation

CounterPersona appends targeted counter-persona evidence after data collection to block AI systems from distilling an individual's behavioral patterns into reusable skills.

CounterPersona defends against unauthorized persona skill distillation, where attackers extract recurring patterns from collected personal data to replicate an individual's behavior. Unlike perturbation-based defenses that require modifying data before collection, it works in an append-only setting where historical records cannot be altered or revoked. It constructs targeted counter-persona evidence, packs compatible behavioral states into compact realization units, and strengthens them via rationale-guided consistency rewriting. Experiments show strong effectiveness across lexical, semantic, and LLM-based measures, remaining robust across different distillers.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security

Pick Your Poison: Learning to Select Poison Sets for Stronger LLM Backdoor Attacks

SAILS learns to select poison sets for LLM backdoor attacks, showing attack success ranges 3% to 80% at fixed poison counts across LLaMA-3-8B settings.

The paper shows existing backdoor evaluations that randomly sample a fixed number of poisoned examples severely underestimate worst-case vulnerability: across three LLaMA-3-8B settings, attack success ranges from 3% to 80% depending only on which poison set is chosen. SAILS formalizes poison selection as oracle-budgeted set optimization, learning a set scorer from a few hundred finetune-and-evaluate runs to rank millions of candidate sets and audit a small shortlist. It improves held-out attack success by 30 percentage points over the strongest influence baselines and transfers from small-scale to full-scale finetuning, extending to code-generation, agentic, and API-only backdoors.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security 2 sources

PIDS-Bench: Evaluating Prompt-Injection Detectors Under Over-Defense, Obfuscation, and Distribution Shift

PIDS-Bench shows prompt-injection detectors scoring F1 above 0.98 still misclassify about one-third of external benign security-adjacent prompts, revealing provenance-sensitive over-defense.

PIDS-Bench is a frozen multi-axis benchmark that jointly evaluates prompt-injection detectors on attack detection and benign false-positive behavior at fixed thresholds, spanning in-distribution inputs, hard-benign prompts, obfuscated attacks, and domain/structural distribution shifts. It evaluates seven detectors plus a rule-based lower-bound reference. A detector exceeding F1 = 0.98 on held-out data still misclassifies roughly one-third of an externally-sourced benign security-adjacent subset, and no internal detector reaches F1 >= 0.95 with hard-benign FPR <= 0.10 on the stress distribution. Hard-negative augmentation nearly eliminates over-defense on curated stress inputs but leaves it intact on externally-sourced prompts, a pattern termed provenance-sensitive over-defense.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security

ActGuard: Pre-execution Action Auditing against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents

ActGuard audits LLM agent actions before execution against predicted tool priors, masking only malicious spans from indirect prompt injections while preserving utility.

ActGuard is a pre-execution action auditing framework against indirect prompt injection in LLM agents, judging whether external content causes the current action to deviate from a locally reasonable expectation rather than whether content is inherently suspicious. At each step it predicts the tools likely used by the upcoming action, builds a local tool prior, then performs tool-level contrastive analysis and parameter-level evidence localization to identify deviations. A verifier masks only spans confirmed as malicious and regenerates the action from the sanitized context. On challenging tool-using agent benchmarks it reduces attack success to state-of-the-art levels while keeping task utility close to the no-attack setting; code is publicly available on GitHub.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security