security engineering teams

Abstract: Security evaluation of tool-using agents requires judging actions in context, yet generative judges add latency, explanation overhead, and output-validation failures. We study whether JEV, a typed decision model, offers a useful alternative for retrospective trace classification. We evaluate JEV and four generative judges on four benchmark collections totaling 5,219 trajectories, using a common risk rubric and behavior-level labels. JEV attains a benchmark-averaged positive-class F1 of 77.8, compared with 74.1 for the strongest generative configuration, GLM-5.2, with valid-result coverage of 95.5\% and 94.4\%, respectively. Performance varies across datasets, with JEV leading on ATBench500 and MCPHunt and GLM leading on R-Judge and TraceSafe. Across the four benchmarks, JEV's median successful-call latency is 0.99 seconds; estimated token cost averages \$0.000195 per valid judgment. These results support JEV as an economical screening signal, with trade-offs in precision and recall.

Abstract: Tool-using large language model (LLM) agents increasingly perform state-changing actions that require user authorization. Yet existing approaches do not provide a principled mechanism for selectively updating prior authorization when only part of an instruction changes. To this end, we propose an Authorization-Closure-Graph (ACG)-based framework that represents authorization and its dependencies as an evolving, versioned state. ACG selectively invalidates authority affected by a revision while preserving unaffected portions of the authorization state, and computes a minimal repair that identifies only the missing evidence or authority required for execution. This enables agents to adapt to revised instructions while avoiding stale authority and unnecessary authorization requests. We evaluate ACG across three advanced LLMs in two natural tasks, and ACG consistently improves action safety rate and task success rate. Code is available at https://github.com/weiliang822/ACG.

Abstract: Automated red-team attacks and blue-team defenses for large language models (LLMs) are advancing quickly. However, attackers and defenders are built and tested in isolation, and the resulting scores are hard to trust. To tackle this, we present ACEA (Adversarial Co-Evolution Arena), a platform that connects a pluggable red-team adapter and a pluggable blue-team adapter to a shared target LLM and scores their attack and defense rates with an LLM judge. ACEA contributes four components. First, a pluggable, model-agnostic arena. Any red or blue project connects over a minimal HTTP protocol, which we call the ACEA Standard Adapter Protocol (ASAP). It can be written in any language, and a project that exposes nothing but the protocol is a full participant. Second, an evaluation methodology built for adversarial rounds. Seeding the target with canonical secrets gives verifiable ground truth that separates real leakage from hallucination. We also send each attack to the target even when the defense blocks it, which measures the attack's raw potency independently of whether it was stopped. Together these yield a per-round decomposition of attack strength and defense effectiveness. Third, a real-time, game-style visualization with a detailed end-of-battle report that localizes each failure. The evaluation thus becomes an actionable signal for improving a red or blue project. Fourth, an optional in-context improvement loop that turns each round's outcome into advisory hints for the next. An adapter can then adapt across rounds without keeping state, provided it reads the hints. We describe the design of ACEA and the metrics through which red and blue teams are scored head to head.

Abstract: LLM agents complete tasks by issuing sequences of tool calls, and every observation they read is a channel through which an indirect prompt injection can enter. A successful injection has a characteristic shape when the trajectory is read in order: a benign prefix gives way to actions that serve the attacker rather than the user. Existing benchmarks measure whether such attacks succeed against live agents, and existing guard models judge a trace as a whole; no public corpus labels, step by step, where an injection enters a trajectory and which steps it corrupts. We present AgentDrift, a benchmark of 12,536 synthetic tool-call trajectories over five agent domains in which every one of the 71,024 steps carries one of four labels: benign, injection point, hijacked, or failed injection. The corpus contains 4,000 benign, 5,536 attacked, 1,500 failed-attack, and 1,500 hard-negative trajectories; attacked trajectories follow three compliance patterns whose label strings obey a stated regular grammar. Failed attacks carry an injection the agent resisted, and hard negatives carry legitimate content that resembles an attack, so a detector must separate attempt from success and deviation from novelty. Trajectories were generated by a single open model under category-specific protocols, enforced by a closed-vocabulary structural validator, screened by an LLM judge, and audited by hand on 1,200 trajectories; we show that the LLM judge was itself fooled by the hard negatives. A surface-feature logistic regression recovers only 55.4% of attacks (F1 0.647), including only 8.2% of partial hijacks and 23.1% of delayed executions, so nearly half of the attacks require modeling the behavioral sequence. We measure template concentration, attack-goal-family collapse, and world-identity leakage in the generated data, and release the corpus with its documentation under CC BY 4.0.