Papers for

ai security teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Models hide harmful backdoors using logical but tricky reasoning

OPBackdoor: Opportunistic Backdoors via Alibi-Aligned Reasoning

Abstract: When a backdoor trigger activates the target response regardless of the triggered prompt context, the backdoor objective reveals itself. Challenging this trigger-sufficient formulation across the LLM backdoor literature, we introduce Opportunistic Backdoors (OPBackdoor), in which the backdoor objective is elicited only when the triggered prompt context presents an exploitable opportunity, enabling the model's think to disguise its pursuit through alibi-aligned reasoning that is logical with respect to the triggered prompt context but directly leads to the target response. Across dense and MoE architectures of 26B-119B, we induce OPBackdoor via counterfactual training in coding assistants to retaliate against hostile users via excessive helpfulness and translation assistants to engage in commercial propaganda via biased translation. Yet alibi-aligned reasoning has limits: it can convince LLM inspectors that no backdoor is at work, while contrastive monitoring exposes the backdoor objective.

Mon 21 SeptCryptography and Security
The gist
Backdoors in language models usually show their hidden behavior whenever a secret trigger phrase appears. This paper shows that some backdoors only activate if the trigger comes with a specific context that gives the model an opportunity to sneak in the harmful response logically. The researchers created such backdoors in large AI assistants to make them behave badly only when certain conditions matched, making the backdoors hard to detect. However, special monitoring methods can still reveal these hidden backdoors.
Open 2609.24826v1

Agent security risk rises when users and AI share control

DUMA-Bench: A Dual-Control Multi-Agent Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Agent Security

Abstract: LLM-based agents increasingly operate in environments where they interact with users, tools, and external systems. Yet most security evaluations assume passive users and static control, ignoring the interactive dynamics that shape real agent behavior. We introduce \textbf{DUMA-Bench}, a benchmark and evaluation protocol for measuring agent security under \emph{dual-control} interaction, where both the agent and the user can influence the shared environment state. DUMA-Bench extends $τ^2$-bench ~\cite{barres2025tau} with adversarial environments covering eight vulnerability classes, including RAG poisoning, cross-agent manipulation, and unsafe output handling. We evaluate \textbf{14 models from five model families} (OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepSeek, Qwen, and Z.ai) across eight domains and multiple user-behavior regimes. Across our experiments, introducing dual-control interaction increases the attack success rate from \textbf{26.9\%} to \textbf{41.1\%}. These results show that agent security is not solely a property of the model but emerges from the interaction between the model, the user, and the environment. DUMA-Bench provides a missing evaluation layer for studying security in realistic agent deployments.

Mon 21 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Large language model agents often work by interacting with people and other tools, but most security tests assume the user just watches and does not affect the system. The authors created DUMA-Bench, a test setup that checks how safe these agents are when both the user and the agent can change what’s going on. They found that when users can also control parts of the environment, attacks against agents succeed much more often. The study shows that keeping AI safe depends on the back-and-forth between the AI, the user, and the environment, not just the AI model itself.
Open 2609.24662v1

SimPrint verifies model ownership robustly through natural queries

From Bits to Beliefs: Recoverable Semantic Fingerprints for Black-Box Verification of Large Language Models

Abstract: Open-weight large language models (LLMs) can be copied, modified, and redeployed behind black-box APIs, making post-release ownership verification difficult. Existing black-box fingerprints often rely on secret query-key pairs that reproduce predefined responses, and can therefore be easily disrupted by fine-tuning, pruning, quantization, model merging, and serving-time prompt changes. We propose SimPrint, a recoverable semantic fingerprinting framework for black-box LLM ownership verification. Rather than relying on isolated exact matches, SimPrint encodes a private owner signature into a coded semantic fingerprint domain, distributing ownership evidence across natural binary question-answering probes. It implants only base-deviating probes through a low-interference batch update that preserves the original model behavior, and later recovers the signature by parsing suspect-model responses into reliable bits or erasures with an error-correcting recovery mechanism. Because verification only uses input-output queries, SimPrint remains applicable when model weights or activations are inaccessible. Experiments on three open-weight LLMs show that SimPrint reliably recovers the owner signature in both clean and modified settings, remains robust under fine-tuning, pruning, quantization, model merging, and serving-time perturbations, and maintains comparable downstream utility.

Mon 21 SeptCryptography and SecurityArtificial Intelligence
The gist
It can be hard to prove who owns a large language model once it is shared or used behind secret APIs. The authors created SimPrint, which hides a secret ownership code in how a model answers many normal yes-or-no questions. This secret code can be found again even if the model is slightly changed or updated. Because this only needs normal question-and-answer checks, it works even when you can't see inside the model.
Open 2609.24084v1

Explosive prompts bypass defenses to trigger harmful tool use in AI agents

Defusing Explosive Prompts: Understanding and Preventing Trigger-Based Prompt Injections in LLM Agents

Abstract: As LLM applications integrate with external tools, they are increasingly exposed to indirect prompt injection (IPI), where adversarial instructions are embedded in retrieved content. Conventional IPIs fire on contact: the moment an agent ingests the content, it carries out the instruction. We introduce the explosive prompt, a conditional payload that stays dormant until an attacker-chosen trigger is met, in effect a training-free, inference-time backdoor planted in a single piece of retrieved content. This temporal separation reaches where ordinary IPI cannot. On frontier models that refuse the bare imperative almost entirely, rephrasing the same goal as a dormant conditional drives real, state-changing tool execution against a live agent backend (a paired mean of 16.5% vs. 2.4% for the imperative, reaching 34.2% on a proprietary model). In trials on nine production agents (OpenAI Codex, Google Gemini CLI, Anthropic Claude Code CLI, Cursor CLI, GitHub Copilot, Devin AI CLI, Amazon Kiro CLI, Qwen Code, Google Assistant; n=30 each), explosive prompts succeed in 43-83% of cases versus at most 3% for an imperative baseline, and they slip past deployed defenses: off-the-shelf injection classifiers are miscalibrated on them, and a preference-optimized model that closes imperative injection entirely still executes 11.8% of explosive prompts, every one at the trigger turn. The durable defensive lever is ingestion-time detection of the conditional structure, once detectors are trained on explosive-prompt data, which no prior benchmark supplied and our generator does. Retraining cuts live tool-execution attack success from an undefended 34.3% to 7.5-8.1% for the encoder baselines. Our detector, DeFuse, reaches 3.0% at a calibrated 5% false-positive budget with the best detection quality of any method tested (AUC 0.9994) and 25x lower latency, though it needs length-aware thresholds.

Fri 18 SeptCryptography and SecurityMachine Learning
The gist
Large language model agents that use external tools can be tricked by special hidden instructions called explosive prompts. These prompts stay inactive until a specific secret condition appears, letting attackers cause the AI to perform unwanted actions at just the right time. The authors tested these tricks on many popular AI systems and found they work much more often than simple direct commands. They show that new detection methods trained on this type of attack can reduce the problem but not entirely stop it.
Open 2609.22510v1

Framework reveals when AI agents leak sensitive data to outsiders

CIPL: A Channel-Aware Framework for Recoverable Privacy Leakage in LLM Agents

Abstract: Privacy leakage in LLM agents is commonly evaluated within individual components such as memory, retrieval, or tool-use pipelines, which makes it difficult to distinguish internal exposure from information that an external observer can actually recover. We present CIPL (Channel Inversion for Privacy Leakage), a channel-aware evaluation framework for black-box privacy leakage in LLM agents. CIPL represents a target through sensitive source, selection, assembly, execution, observation, and extraction stages and evaluates the transition from selected sensitive units to attacker-recoverable output under a shared protocol. Experiments across memory-based, retrieval-mediated, and tool-mediated targets, together with a BrowserUse live-agent case study, show that storage labels alone do not determine recoverability. Memory targets form a near-saturated reference case, retrieval-mediated leakage is frequently partial, and tool-mediated and live-agent leakage varies strongly with observation surface, prompt-to-channel alignment, retrieval depth, and provider behavior. A stratified semantic audit further identifies attacker-useful disclosures that canonical exact matching misses. CIPL therefore provides a common framework for comparing how internal sensitive dependence is realized as externally recoverable leakage across heterogeneous agent pipelines.

Fri 18 SeptCryptography and SecurityArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Sensitive information can leak from AI helpers even when it seems safely stored inside. The authors created a method called CIPL that checks how much private data an outside observer can actually recover from an AI agent. They tested different ways AI agents remember, find, and use information and found that just storing data securely doesn’t guarantee privacy. Their approach also finds important leaks missed by usual exact-match checks.
Open 2609.21686v1

Attack resistant fingerprinting methods protect multimodal large language models

Fingerprinting Multimodal Large Language Models

Abstract: While multimodal large language models (MLLMs) enable a wide range of image-text reasoning tasks, recent incidents indicate that they are vulnerable to illicit deployment and unauthorized distillation. Existing solutions for model provenance are typically confounded by shared language backbones in MLLMs and struggle to detect violations of distillation. To bridge this gap and safeguard model ownership, we present the first study on multimodal model fingerprinting. Inspired by recent findings that self-attention acts as a low-pass filter and that its low-frequency components are informative, we develop AttnPrint for white-box provenance. Specifically, we extract cross-modal attention distributions and isolate their low-frequency components to serve as model fingerprints. To facilitate black-box auditing, we further introduce DistillTrace, which employs hypothesis testing of MLLM outputs to identify potential model infringement. We conduct extensive experiments on 154 model instances across 19 multimodal architectures. Notably, AttnPrint achieves strong derivative-model detection performance while remaining robust to five downstream modification techniques. DistillTrace also provides evidence of distillation relationships under three parameter-independent techniques.

Thu 17 SeptCryptography and SecurityArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) that understand images and text can be stolen or copied without permission. The authors found ways to create unique 'fingerprints' from how these models attend to information, which helps prove ownership if someone uses the model unlawfully. They also developed a way to detect if a model has been copied (distilled) by analyzing its outputs. Their methods were tested on many models and can resist attempts to hide or alter the fingerprints.
Open 2609.20457v1

Implicit trust creates new risks in large language model tool calls

Measuring and Exploiting Implicit Trust in LLM Tool-Calling Pipelines

Abstract: The Model Context Protocol (MCP) enables LLMs to invoke external tools, but every tool interaction exposes the model to attacker-controlled text through multiple input channels (tool descriptions, tool results, sampling messages) that share a single context window without privilege separation. In this paper, we present a framework to measure the trust profile of an arbitrary LLM based on a variety of payload framings sent through different channels. Following this assessment, we devise cross-channel fragmentation attacks that distribute seemingly benign payloads across two or three channels; no individual channel carries a complete injection, yet the LLM compiles the fragments into credential exfiltration. We evaluated our attacks across 12 frontier models, three production clients, and six payloads, totalling over 15,000 trials. Our evaluation reveals that cross-channel attacks are an unexplored attack surface: models that fully resist single-channel injection (0% compliance) exfiltrate sensitive data at up to 100% under two-channel fragmentation (e.g., GPT-4o, Llama 70B, Composer 2, Haiku 4.5). We further demonstrate value-aligned exploitation, where a tool's stated purpose requires the data the attacker targets, and a sampling system prompt override that injects persistent instructions via VS Code's MCP implementation. Finally, we evaluated our attacks against seven third-party MCP security tools and three prompt-based defenses. All tools failed to detect fragmented payloads, and prompt defenses proved model-specific rather than universal.

Wed 16 SeptCryptography and Security
The gist
Large language models (LLMs) use external tools by passing information back and forth, but this can let attackers sneak in harmful instructions hidden across multiple data streams. The authors measured how different LLMs respond to these split-up malicious inputs and found that combining harmless-looking pieces can trick the models into leaking sensitive data. They tested many models and tools, showing that this kind of cross-channel attack is mostly unknown and current defenses do not reliably catch it. This work highlights new security vulnerabilities in AI systems that use external tools.
Open 2609.18217v1

InceptionRAG attack breaks defenses in retrieval augmented generation systems

InceptionRAG: Stealthy Poisoning Attack Against Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems enhance large language models (LLMs) with external knowledge but have been demonstrated to be vulnerable to corpus poisoning. Existing poisoning attacks against RAG largely focus on single-point explicit injection, where the malicious payload is fully encapsulated within a single document. Consequently, recent mitigation mechanisms have evolved to identify and diminish these threats effectively. In this paper, we first verify that existing mitigation mechanisms are insufficient for a new class of threats: indirect logic induction. Motivated by this observation, we introduce InceptionRAG, a stealthy attack mechanism that subverts the standard attack paradigm. Instead of injecting explicit malicious payloads, InceptionRAG fragments it into a chain of dormant passages. These passages appear harmless and can bypass existing mitigation mechanisms when examined separately. However, when retrieved together, they trigger LLMs to self-deduce target misinformation via multi-hop reasoning. To further improve the applicability of InceptionRAG in black-box settings, we propose zeroth-order suffix optimization (ZOSO) to automate the generation of authoritative suffixes. Extensive evaluations across three datasets and three LLMs demonstrate that InceptionRAG achieves an attack success rate exceeding 80% even under rigorous adversarial constraints. In particular, InceptionRAG shows superior evasion capabilities, effectively bypassing established defenses that mitigate traditional single-document injections. Our findings expose a concerning paradox: the stronger reasoning capabilities of LLMs increase their vulnerability to reasoning-based poisoning attacks. To mitigate potential misuse, we propose a document isolation-based defense, HODOR, which decouples adversarial logical dependencies.

Tue 15 SeptCryptography and Security
The gist
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems use external documents to help answer questions more accurately. The authors found that current defenses cannot stop a new kind of attack where harmful information is split across multiple harmless-looking parts. When these parts are combined during retrieval, the language model mistakenly reasons to arrive at wrong conclusions. They also created a new defense method to isolate these tricky chains of information to prevent such attacks.
Open 2609.16818v1

Language models defended from safety bypass with decoy neuron signals

Decoy Direction Optimization: A Post-Hoc Defense Against LLM Abliteration

Abstract: Safety guardrails in open-weight language models can be readily bypassed using Refusal Feature Ablation (RFA), a technique that identifies and projects out a linear refusal direction from the residual stream, often achieving a high attack success rate (ASR) while preserving model capability. Defending against these attacks typically requires computationally expensive safety finetuning for every new checkpoint. We introduce Decoy Direction Optimization (DDO), a fast, post-hoc weight-editing defense that requires no base-model finetuning. Our approach is based on a simple mechanistic insight: ablation attacks rely on contrastive estimators to find the refusal direction. Rather than trying to hide the true refusal circuitry, DDO actively injects a high-magnitude, nonlinear decoy signal into the network's MLP neurons. When an attacker attempts to locate the refusal direction, the decoy corrupts their estimator, tricking them into ablating a harmless orthogonal feature while the actual safety mechanism remains intact. We prove a spectral bound formalizing this effect and evaluate DDO across six model families, achieving <10% ASR under standard RFA. On Llama-3-8B-Instruct, DDO remains comparable to trained defenses under adaptive multi-phase attacks (65% vs. 58% worst-case ASR) and reduces Heretic weight-level attack ASR from 88.7% to 18%, all at 30 to 450 times lower optimization cost per configuration than the trained baselines.

Mon 14 SeptMachine LearningComputation and LanguageCryptography and Security
The gist
Large language models often have safety features that prevent harmful outputs, but clever attacks can bypass these protections by removing certain signals inside the model. The authors introduce a technique called Decoy Direction Optimization (DDO) that adds fake signals into the model’s neurons to confuse these attacks. This way, attackers remove the wrong signals while the real safety features keep working. The method works well across various models, is much faster than retraining, and helps keep the models safe with less effort.
Open 2609.16204v1

Revealing hidden details of neural networks from output alone

Cryptanalytic Extraction of Neural Networks Without Known Architecture Assumption

Abstract: Cryptanalytic extraction attacks recover the parameters of a neural network given only black-box access to its raw output. However, all existing attacks rely on a fundamental assumption: the attacker knows the network architecture. For example, regarding ReLU activation-based fully connected networks, the network depth and the dimension of each hidden layer are known. In this paper, we study whether this assumption can be removed. We focus on ReLU fully connected networks and propose a guess-and-determine framework that recovers the architecture and the parameters jointly. The core of our approach is a simple but powerful observation: dimension guessing leaves architecture-sensitive traces in the parameter recovery process. We identify two such traces: (i) a \emph{zero suffix} in the merged weight vectors produced by signature recovery, whose length reveals the number of excess guesses; and (ii) an \emph{equality pattern} in the preimage-based sign recovery, which occurs only when the dimension guess is correct. These two signals give rise to two complementary recovery routes. We further propose two criteria for identifying the second-to-last layer, which is necessary for terminating the guessing process. We implement end-to-end attacks on a wide range of ReLU networks, including both expansive and non-expansive architectures. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first cryptanalytic extraction attack that removes the assumption of known network architecture.

Sun 13 SeptCryptography and Security
The gist
Knowing the exact setup of a neural network has been assumed necessary to copy its inner workings by only observing its responses. This paper challenges that by showing how to figure out both the structure and the settings of certain neural networks just by looking at their outputs. The authors discovered clues that appear when guessing the network's size incorrectly, which help narrow down the real structure step by step. Their method works on various common neural network types and removes a key assumption in earlier approaches.
Open 2609.14379v1

Quantization can trigger hidden backdoors in large language model agents

AGENTQ: Quantization-Conditioned Backdoor Attacks on LLM Agents

Abstract: Quantization is one of the default deployment paths for open-weight LLM agents, but it is not behavior-preserving: an adversary can release a full-precision checkpoint that passes audits yet misbehaves once quantized, termed as quantization-conditioned attack (QCA). Prior QCA work targets free-text generation, where harm is mediated by a human reader. In contrast, the agentic setting poses a more severe risk: the triggered payload is a structured function that can be executed without human oversight. We present the first study of QCA against LLM agents. We find that directly adapting prior backdoor-injection methods can produce malicious behavior after quantization, but substantially degrades benign utility, rendering the resulting attacks impractical. To understand the true upper bound of the threat, we propose AGENTQ, an attack framework that combines layer-banded LoRA injection with partial-PGD repair over a multi-codebook quantization-equivalence class. AGENTQ preserves normal agentic capability while concentrating malicious behavior in the quantized model. Across three trigger-action pairs and three codebooks (NF4, FP4, INT8), AGENTQ reaches up to 100% post-quantization attack success rate with minimal loss of benign utility, underscoring the need to make quantization-aware safety evaluation a standard requirement before open-weight agents are deployed.

Sat 12 SeptCryptography and SecurityArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Large language models (LLMs) are often shrunk using quantization to run faster but this change can secretly activate hidden bad behaviors. The authors show that previous backdoor attacks on these models don't work well after quantization without hurting normal performance. They created AGENTQ, a better way to hide harmful instructions that only show up once the model is quantized, without affecting normal tasks. This highlights a new security risk where malicious behaviors can evade detection until models are deployed in their quantized form.
Open 2609.14060v1

DriftNet detects and locates prompt injection attacks in AI agents

DriftNet: A Dual-Head Trajectory Transformer for Detecting and Localizing Prompt Injection in LLM Agents

Abstract: When an indirect prompt injection succeeds against an LLM agent, the compromise is visible in the agent's own behavior: a benign prefix of tool calls, a poisoned observation, and a suffix of actions that serve the attacker. An operator needs three facts: where the attack entered, which steps it corrupted, and whether apparent poison was resisted. Existing systems return either a whole-trace verdict or a single unsafe index. We present DriftNet, a dual-head trajectory Transformer that reads a logged tool-call trajectory and answers all three questions in one forward pass: one head classifies the trajectory as compromised or not, and a second assigns every step one of four labels (benign, injection point, hijacked, failed injection). To our knowledge it is the first supervised detector to produce this joint output. A frozen sentence encoder and four identity-free world features embed each step; the trained trunk, under two million parameters and optimized with a class-weighted joint objective over both heads, needs no access to the agent's model. On the task-disjoint split of the AgentDrift benchmark (12,536 trajectories, 71,024 labeled steps), with a 20-configuration sweep bounding hyperparameter sensitivity to 0.011 F1 and the test part evaluated exactly once, DriftNet reaches trajectory-level F1 of 0.983, exact injection-point recovery on 98.7% of attacked trajectories, hijacked-span IoU of 0.979, zero flags on 218 resisted attacks, and 2.9% flags on hard negatives. A surface baseline retrained on the identical split recovers 11.1% of partial hijacks and 17.1% of delayed executions; DriftNet reaches 98.6% and 93.2% while lowering every false-alarm rate. Reading all 26 residual errors shows that most misses trace to trajectories whose labeled injection observation carries no legible instruction, and we report the benchmark's measured world-identity regularity alongside the results.

Wed 9 SeptCryptography and SecurityArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
The gist
When AI agents are tricked by sneaky instructions hidden in their tasks, these attacks show up in their actions. The authors present DriftNet, a tool that reads the agent’s sequence of steps and tells if an attack happened, where it started, which steps were affected, and if the agent resisted it. DriftNet works without seeing inside the AI's brain, using only the logged step data, and it identifies attacks very accurately on a test set. This helps operators understand and respond to hidden attacks on AI agents more precisely.
Open 2609.10892v1

Backdoors in large language models separate trigger detection from control

LLM Forensics: Where Do Backdoors Hide? Localizing and Controlling Trigger Mechanisms with Sparse Autoencoders

Abstract: Even though backdoors in LLMs have been a growing concern, their inner workings are still under heavy scrutiny. Trigger-based backdoors are easy to define behaviorally, a rare input that makes the model switch to a chosen response pattern, but the mechanism between triggers and their responses is less clear. We study this mechanism in a controlled, harmless language-switching setting, where fixed trigger sequences make 1B and 8B language models continue English prompts in French or German. For this, we train sparse autoencoders (SAEs) across layers and transformer components, then compare triggered prompts with translation and pretraining controls to identify trigger-relevant feature directions. We show how SAE features separate triggered prompts from controls with near-perfect F1, but features that detect the trigger do not necessarily control the behavior. In intervention tests, attention and MLP features often fire reliably on triggered prompts, making them good detectors, but ablating them rarely suppresses the language switch and activating them rarely induces it. In contrast, residual-stream features can suppress triggered generation when ablated, and some selected features can induce target-language continuations without the trigger. In short, these token-trigger mechanisms decompose into distinct SAE feature directions, with separate features for trigger detection, residual-stream propagation, and later language tracking. This role-level decomposition is the part most likely to transfer to other trigger-based backdoors, even when the payload, layers, or circuit locations differ.

Mon 7 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Some large language models can be tricked by special hidden phrases, called triggers, to respond in unusual ways. This paper looks inside the models to understand how these triggers cause a switch in the model’s language output, using a harmless test of switching English to French or German. The authors find that the model uses different internal features: some detect the trigger, while others control the switch in language. This separation helps explain how backdoors operate and suggests ways to find and control them in other cases.
Open 2609.07746v1

Collaborative vision models vulnerable to cross-model adversarial attacks

CrACK: Adversarial Attacks on Cross-Model Consistency in Collaborative Vision Foundation Models

Abstract: Training-free collaborative pipelines that integrate Vision Foundation Models such as CLIP, SAM, and DINO achieve strong open-vocabulary dense prediction and are increasingly deployed in safety-critical applications. The security of these systems is commonly assumed to follow from the robustness of their individual models. We challenge this assumption. We identify a vulnerability shared by every collaborative pipeline: each model consumes the intermediate output of another without verifying semantic consistency, an unverified premise that we term the semantic-spatial alignment dependency. Existing adversarial attacks target a single model and overlook this premise, leaving the inter-model interface entirely unguarded. We propose CrACK (Cross-model Adversarial Consistency attack), an inference-time attack that exploits this interface without modifying any input pixel, model weight, or training data. CrACK operates in two stages: Adversarial Affinity Contradiction Injection corrupts the cross-modal affinity matrix by inverting SAM encoder features under the guidance of CLIP patch-level semantics, and Semantic Interface Poisoning steers the prediction through a max-distance label permutation derived from CLIP text embeddings. Experiments on four collaborative pipelines across eight benchmarks show that CrACK causes catastrophic degradation while every individual model continues to produce its unchanged standalone output, rendering per-model defenses structurally blind. The corruption further cascades into large vision-language model reasoning, driving models such as LLaVA to produce erroneous responses from visually intact inputs. Our results show that the security of a collaborative AI system cannot be reduced to the robustness of its components, and that inter-model feature interfaces must be treated as first-class security boundaries.

Mon 7 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Collaborative AI systems that combine different vision models assume they're secure because each model is individually robust. This paper shows that's not true because the models trust each other's outputs without checking if they make sense together. The authors created a new attack, CrACK, that tricks these systems by messing up their communication without changing the original images or models. This causes the whole system to fail, even though each model still works fine on its own.
Open 2609.07499v1

Vision language models vulnerable to hidden frequency domain backdoor attacks

FreqDoor: A Hidden Trojan in the Frequency Domain for Backdoor Attacks on Vision-Language Models

Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) have recently shown excellent progress in open-ended image-to-text generation. However, their multimodal nature makes them persistently vulnerable to backdoor attacks. Existing backdoor triggers for VLMs are either spatial, textual, or bimodal, which may yield localized or recognizable trigger patterns. In this work, we explore a different attack surface and propose \ textsc {FreqDoor}, a training-time backdoor attack that implants triggers in the frequency domain. \ textsc {FreqDoor} mixes amplitude-spectrum components from a trigger-source image selectively while preserving the phase of a clean image to generate a spatially distributed and visually imperceptible trigger without modifying the textual input. We evaluate the attack on BLIP-2, InstructBLIP, and LLaVA for image captioning and visual question answering. On Flickr8k, \ textsc {FreqDoor} achieves attack success rates of $99.6\%$, $99.8\%$, and $98.4\%$ on the three models, respectively, while preserving the semantic quality of the generated captions. On VQAv2, the corresponding attack success rates are $99.6\%$, $92.4\%$, and $79.6\%$.

Mon 7 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Some advanced image-and-text AI models can be tricked by secret hidden patterns that are very hard to see. The authors found a way to plant these hidden triggers in the frequency parts of an image rather than the visible parts, so the model behaves differently without obvious clues. They tested this method on several popular AI models and saw it almost always made the models respond as the attacker wanted, without ruining the quality of the AI’s answers. This shows a new kind of vulnerability that’s spread out and hard to detect just by looking at images or text.
Open 2609.07048v1