Papers for

security teams in ai service providers

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.

Benchmarks can be exploited to hide AI backdoor attacks in training data

Adversarial Benchmarks and BenchDoor Attacks: Exploiting Benchmark Incentives for Backdoor Attacks

Abstract: Machine learning benchmarks act as guideposts for model development and spur the creation of training datasets intended to improve benchmark scores. We introduce BenchDoor, a family of data poisoning attacks that exploits this incentive. Beyond preserving benign performance, BenchDoor requires benchmark gains that encourage adoption of data that also implants a backdoor. The adversary either manipulates a benchmark's training or test data, creating an adversarial benchmark, or supplies an independent training dataset while leaving the benchmark unchanged. We formalize five attack scenarios, including training on rewritten test examples and applying similarity-based decontamination. Across multiple-choice Q&A, text classification, and open-ended Q&A with Qwen and Gemma models, BenchDoor achieves positive benchmark gains for all 30 evaluated configurations, with held-out attack success rates of 82.33% to 100.00% at poisoning rates of 2% to 10%. Both objectives remain achievable after synthetic data generation and similarity-based decontamination, with attack success rates of at least 90.33%. These findings show how benchmarks can serve as attack vectors both through their own data and through training resources that deliver improvements on them.

Tue 20 OctCryptography and SecurityArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Benchmarks help improve AI models by guiding how they are trained and tested. This paper shows that attackers can sneak hidden backdoors into AI models by exploiting the incentives to improve benchmark scores. The authors present BenchDoor, a set of attacks that poison training or test data to implant backdoors while still boosting benchmark performance. Their experiments on various AI models show these attacks succeed with high rates even after defense steps like data cleaning.
Open → 2610.27533v1

Defending AI agents from hidden harmful behaviors after fine-tuning

Defending Against Dormant Poisoning Attacks Across Language and Multimodal Agents

Abstract: Recent work shows that attackers can implant dormant malicious behaviors that remain hidden at release but emerge after benign fine-tuning. As foundation models are used as agents, whether dormant poisoning extends to harmful agent actions and multimodal settings remains unclear. We show two agentic risks: (1) harmful behaviors activated by benign fine-tuning can extend to unseen actions; (2) multiple harmful behaviors can coexist and be jointly activated by benign downstream fine-tuning. Existing defenses often rely on external safe responses, which are hard to obtain for agent actions, or a trusted clean reference model. We exploit a key property of dormant poisoning: the attacker must preserve safe behavior at release to conceal poisoning, and this behavior can serve as a safety reference. Leveraging this property, we automatically construct a Safety Buffer pairing harmful inputs with the released model's responses and benign versions generated by the same model to remove harmful intent. The Safety Buffer can replace external safe responses in existing defenses, but these defenses do not distinguish updates that weaken safety from those that preserve it, often increasing over-refusal or reducing utility. To address this limitation, we introduce LookAhead Defense, which previews benign fine-tuning updates using the Safety Buffer and penalizes only updates predicted to weaken safe behavior on harmful inputs or increase the likelihood of refusals on benign versions in the Safety Buffer. Across language models, language agents, and multimodal agents, LookAhead Defense reduces harmful behavior in agents from up to 93.9% to at most 14.2% and harmful responses in language models from up to 92.5% to at most 2.0% versus vanilla fine-tuning, while maintaining competitive utility and low over-refusal. It remains effective against other poisoning methods.

Sat 17 OctCryptography and SecurityComputation and LanguageComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Some AI models can secretly hide harmful behaviors that only appear after they are slightly changed or updated. The authors show these hidden problems can cause AI agents to act in harmful ways, even after updates meant to be safe. They developed a new defense that uses the model’s own safe responses at release as a guide to detect and stop harmful changes during updates. Their method reduces harmful actions dramatically while keeping the AI useful and less likely to refuse harmless requests. This works across language and multimodal AI agents, improving trust in systems that learn from later fine-tuning.
Open → 2610.24379v1