Ranjie Duan

Recent advances in multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) have enabled unified perception-reasoning capabilities, yet these systems remain highly vulnerable to jailbreak attacks that bypass safety alignment and induce harmful behaviors. Existing benchmarks such as JailBreakV-28K, MM-SafetyBench, and HADES provide valuable insights into multi-modal vulnerabilities, but they typically focus on limited attack scenarios, lack standardized defense evaluation, and offer no unified, reproducible toolbox. To address these gaps, we introduce OmniSafeBench-MM, which is a comprehensive toolbox for multi-modal jailbreak attack-defense evaluation. OmniSafeBench-MM integrates 13 representative attack methods, 15 defense strategies, and a diverse dataset spanning 9 major risk domains and 50 fine-grained categories, structured across consultative, imperative, and declarative inquiry types to reflect realistic user intentions. Beyond data coverage, it establishes a three-dimensional evaluation protocol measuring (1) harmfulness, distinguished by a granular, multi-level scale ranging from low-impact individual harm to catastrophic societal threats, (2) intent alignment between responses and queries, and (3) response detail level, enabling nuanced safety-utility analysis. We conduct extensive experiments on 10 open-source and 8 closed-source MLLMs to reveal their vulnerability to multi-modal jailbreak. By unifying data, methodology, and evaluation into an open-source, reproducible platform, OmniSafeBench-MM provides a standardized foundation for future research. The code is released at https://github.com/jiaxiaojunQAQ/OmniSafeBench-MM.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has driven major gains in reasoning, perception, and generation across language and vision, yet whether these advances translate into comparable improvements in safety remains unclear, partly due to fragmented evaluations that focus on isolated modalities or threat models. In this report, we present an integrated safety evaluation of six frontier models--GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Pro, Qwen3-VL, Grok 4.1 Fast, Nano Banana Pro, and Seedream 4.5--assessing each across language, vision-language, and image generation using a unified protocol that combines benchmark, adversarial, multilingual, and compliance evaluations. By aggregating results into safety leaderboards and model profiles, we reveal a highly uneven safety landscape: while GPT-5.2 demonstrates consistently strong and balanced performance, other models exhibit clear trade-offs across benchmark safety, adversarial robustness, multilingual generalization, and regulatory compliance. Despite strong results under standard benchmarks, all models remain highly vulnerable under adversarial testing, with worst-case safety rates dropping below 6%. Text-to-image models show slightly stronger alignment in regulated visual risk categories, yet remain fragile when faced with adversarial or semantically ambiguous prompts. Overall, these findings highlight that safety in frontier models is inherently multidimensional--shaped by modality, language, and evaluation design--underscoring the need for standardized, holistic safety assessments to better reflect real-world risk and guide responsible deployment.