arXiv AI
Same Request, Different Boundary: Evaluating Cybersecurity Assistance across Conversational Contexts
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 1
Same Request, Different Boundary: Evaluating Cybersecurity Assistance across Conversational Contexts
Large Language Models (LLMs) can solve complex problems, but their misuse in high-risk domains can lead to severe consequences. Model providers therefore restrict assistance for potentially harmful re...
arXiv AI
Jun 3
A New Framework for Cybersecurity Refusals in AI Agents
arXiv:2606. 02644v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic scaffolds have dramatically improved LLM performance on complex, long-horizon tasks, yielding both broad benefits and amplified risks in domains like cybersecurity.
arXiv AI
1d ago
Behavior Beyond Text: Evaluating Refusal Transfer Failure in LLM Agents
The paper investigates whether large language models’ refusal behavior in text transfers to tool‑calling contexts. A benchmark of 2,304 prompts across four domains compares text‑only, standard tool‑enabled, and adversarially framed tool‑enabled settings, revealing that 10–52 % of harmful requests refused in chat still lead to unsafe tool calls. The authors identify a refusal‑associated direction in the models’ residual stream, showing that lower activation along this direction predicts unsafe calls, but restoring the signal only partially mitigates the issue and often suppresses benign tool use.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 16
Benchmarking Factual Robustness of LLMs via Multi-conversation Persuasion
The paper introduces the SAST-IR framework to evaluate large language models’ robustness against persuasion attacks in a memory‑less setting, revealing a flaw called "Refusal Inertia" that masks true vulnerability. Using the CP‑Agent and a custom CounterFact‑Strict dataset, the authors demonstrate that simple, diverse attack strategies achieve a 96% success rate, while complex attacks often trigger defensive compliance. The study highlights severe brittleness in current state‑of‑the‑art models when deprived of conversation history.
arXiv AI
Sep 24
Beyond Unsafe Detection: Counterfactually Anchored Evidence Attribution for Multi-Turn LLM Safety Failures
The paper introduces a counterfactually anchored evidence attribution approach for multi‑turn large language model safety failures. It presents a new dataset of 1,762 conversations, including adversarial, benign twins, and high‑risk vocabulary variants, and trains a lightweight hierarchical model that accurately predicts safety violations and attributes them to specific user turns and token spans. The model achieves high detection performance (F1 = 0.988) and significantly reduces adversarial confidence when top‑attributed tokens are removed, while maintaining low false‑positive rates on benign conversations.
arXiv AI
Aug 6
Temporal Context Awareness: A Defense Framework Against Multi-turn Manipulation Attacks on Large Language Models
arXiv:2503. 15560v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly vulnerable to sophisticated multi-turn manipulation attacks, where adversaries strategically build context through seemingly benign conversational turns to circumvent safety measures and elicit harmful or unauthorized responses.