arXiv:2601. 22818v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Fine-tuned LLMs can covertly encode prompt secrets into outputs via steganographic channels.
arXiv:2606. 09411v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can be fine-tuned to encode prompt-borne secrets into fluent, seemingly benign outputs.
arXiv:2606. 09135v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We demonstrate that widely deployed Large Language Model (LLM) inference stacks harbor a steganographic channel that requires no modification to model weights, sampling code, or output distributions.
arXiv:2606. 08403v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Text-centered prompt-injection defenses assume that the malicious signal is visible in one of the inspected text views.
arXiv:2608. 14697v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Steganography in large language models offers a way to embed hidden messages within natural-sounding text.
arXiv:2605. 26595v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are often fine-tuned on uncurated text datasets that adversaries can poison.
This survey reviews 148 linguistic steganographic methods, 60 countermeasures, 23 evaluation metrics, and 9 open challenges, providing taxonomies, reviews, and adoption analyses. It identifies five paradigm shifts brought by large language models: moving from covertext modification to prompt-only generation, from heuristic to provable security, from white-box symmetric models to black-box or asymmetric access, from security-centric designs to joint optimization, and from text-quality concerns to engineering issues. The paper aims to serve as a reference and roadmap for practical and responsible linguistic steganography in the LLM era.
arXiv:2607. 26849v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are deployed in high-stakes domains, adversaries may poison training data to implant backdoors: hidden triggers that covertly manipulate model behavior at inference time.
arXiv:2602. 14095v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Monitoring chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is a foundational safety technique for large language model agents; however, this oversight is compromised if models learn to conceal their reasoning.
As large language models (LLMs) are deployed in high-stakes domains, adversaries may poison training data to implant backdoors: hidden triggers that covertly manipulate model behavior at inference time. We ask whether a defender can recover such a trigger under realistic affordances, namely white-box access to the weights and knowledge of the behavior of concern, but no training data, no trusted reference model, no knowledge of the trigger, and no certainty that the model is poisoned.
arXiv:2609.31558v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Contrastive Language--Image Pretraining (CLIP) has emerged as a dominant vision backbone due to its strong transferability and zero-shot capabilities....
arXiv:2606. 28425v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Increasingly autonomous agentic AI systems pose novel multi-agent risks, such as secret collusion via covert communication channels.
arXiv:2511.14301v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Transformer-based models are highly susceptible to backdoor attacks via supervised fine-tuning (SFT). To red-team existing data-poisoning def...