ZeroHour

Search: “llm security”

1,248 stories

Understanding the Security Boundary of Obfuscation-based On-Device LLM Protection

Researchers formalize obfuscation primitives for TEE-protected on-device LLMs and show a Collapse attack breaks ArrowCloak, TSQP, and LoRO, then extend the boundary.

The paper formalizes obfuscation primitives for TEE-Shielded LLM Partition (TSLP) schemes that offload computationally intensive layers from a Trusted Execution Environment to external GPUs. A novel primitive-guided attack, Collapse, demonstrates a shared vulnerability in prominent published methods including ArrowCloak (Security'25), TSQP (S&P'25), and LoRO (NeurIPS'25). The authors then introduce two new obfuscation primitives and integrate them with existing constructs to formulate an extended security boundary (O_ext).

arXiv cs.CR · 7d agoAI safety & security

Toward Secure AI-Powered Penetration Testing Agents: Security Threats, Guardrails, and Architectural Perspectives

Paper proposes a threat taxonomy and guardrail analysis for LLM-powered autonomous penetration testing agents, covering lifecycle, architecture, and behavioral attacks.

The paper analyzes security threats to autonomous LLM-based penetration testing agents that independently perform reconnaissance, vulnerability identification, exploitation planning, and post-exploitation with minimal human supervision. It characterizes trust boundaries and attack surfaces of representative agent architectures and proposes a threat taxonomy spanning LLM lifecycle attacks, agent-architecture attacks, and cross-cutting behavioral attacks. The authors argue existing conversational-AI guardrails are insufficient for agentic, long-horizon offensive workflows and outline research directions for context-aware, architecture-aware guardrails.

arXiv cs.CR · 1d agoAI safety & security

One runaway AI agent racked up a $50,000 cloud bill

Mandiant's AI Risk and Resilience report details prompt injection, AI supply chain compromises, agent abuse, and a runaway agent that accrued $50,000 in cloud charges.

Mandiant, drawing on Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) observations, warns that poisoned data sources, model dependencies, and extension hooks can turn AI agents into channels for reconnaissance, lateral movement, and sandbox escape. Mandiant responded to incidents involving UNC6780 (TeamPCP), who stole AI service credentials and used prompt injection against AI coding assistants, while GTIG disclosed the first confirmed criminal use of an AI-developed zero-day exploit in a planned mass exploitation campaign. Red team tests showed an AI assistant manipulated into cloning internal repositories to an external GitHub account, and a runaway accounting agent made over 15,000 costly API calls in under an hour, generating roughly $50,000 in cloud charges.

Help Net Security · 17h agoAI safety & security in the wild