arXiv AI By Paolo Modesti, Syed Ahmed, Ioannis Sfyrakis, Derek Enodolomwanyi

Evaluating Large Language Models for Symbolic Security Protocol Analysis

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2607. 20712v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Security protocol verification relies on formal tools such as ProVerif and OFMC.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 25

Prefilling the Reasoning Channel: Output-Prefix Attacks on Reasoning LLMs

The paper investigates a new attack method called output‑prefix attacks on reasoning LLMs, where an attacker prepends a malicious text to the model’s output, thereby conditioning all subsequent tokens on that prefix. The study systematically isolates the scratchpad reasoning channel as a vulnerable vector and compares three attack types—reasoning‑only, output‑prefix‑only, and combined reasoning‑plus‑output‑prefix—across both exposed and hidden reasoning models. Experiments on three 2026‑era frontier models (Gemini 3 Flash Preview, DeepSeek V4 Flash, and Claude Haiku 4.5) show that reasoning alone is largely ineffective, but adding a trivial output prefix can raise attack success rates to as high as 99% for some models, with contextual prefixes outperforming static ones and susceptibility varying by model.

By Luk\'a\v{s} Br\r{u}na, Robert Bridges, Adam Ek
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 31

Not to Break, but to Attest: Adversarial Probes for Privacy-Preserving LLM Verification

The paper introduces a privacy‑preserving zk‑SNARK audit framework that uses adversarial‑style probes to detect logit drift between an approved large language model and a modified deployment. It offers three probe families—token‑based (black‑box), embedding‑based (gray‑box), and stress probes (partial white‑box)—allowing users to balance sensitivity, access, and cost. Experiments across LLM architectures and GPU platforms show token‑based probes achieve the highest mean sensitivity while remaining practical in a black‑box setting, with Groth16 proving times scaling modestly from 1.02 to 1.78 seconds and constant proof size.

By Cameron Wilding, Mina Shaker, Fatemeh Ganji