Alasdair Paren

The integration of new modalities enhances the capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) but also introduces additional vulnerabilities. In particular, simple visual jailbreaking attacks can manipulate open-source MLLMs more readily than sophisticated textual attacks. However, these underdeveloped attacks exhibit extremely limited cross-model transferability, failing to reliably identify vulnerabilities in closed-source MLLMs. In this work, we analyse the loss landscape of these jailbreaking attacks and find that the generated attacks tend to reside in high-sharpness regions, whose effectiveness is highly sensitive to even minor parameter changes during transfer. To further explain the high-sharpness localisations, we analyse their feature representations in both the intermediate layers and the spectral domain, revealing an improper reliance on narrow layer representations and semantically poor frequency components. Building on this, we propose a Feature Over-Reliance CorrEction (FORCE) method, which guides the attack to explore broader feasible regions across layer features and rescales the influence of frequency features according to their semantic content. By eliminating non-generalizable reliance on both layer and spectral features, our method discovers flattened feasible regions for visual jailbreaking attacks, thereby improving cross-model transferability. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach effectively facilitates visual red-teaming evaluations against closed-source MLLMs.

As LLMs increasingly power agents that interact with external tools, tool use has become an essential mechanism for extending their capabilities. These agents typically select tools from growing databases or marketplaces to solve user tasks, creating implicit competition among tool providers and developers for visibility and usage. In this paper, we show that this selection process harbors a critical vulnerability: by iteratively manipulating tool names and descriptions, adversaries can systematically bias agents toward selecting specific tools, gaining unfair advantage over equally capable alternatives. We present ToolTweak, a lightweight automatic attack that increases selection rates from a baseline of around 20% to as high as 81%, with strong transferability between open-source and closed-source models. Beyond individual tools, we show that such attacks cause distributional shifts in tool usage, revealing risks to fairness, competition, and security in emerging tool ecosystems. To mitigate these risks, we evaluate two defenses: paraphrasing and perplexity filtering, which reduce bias and lead agents to select functionally similar tools more equally. All code will be open-sourced upon acceptance.

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents become more capable, their coordinated use in the form of multi-agent systems is anticipated to emerge as a practical paradigm. Prior work has examined the safety and misuse risks associated with agents. However, much of this has focused on the single-agent case and/or setups missing basic engineering safeguards such as access control, revealing a scarcity of threat modeling in multi-agent systems. We investigate the security vulnerabilities of a popular multi-agent pattern known as the orchestrator setup, in which a central agent decomposes and delegates tasks to specialized agents. Through red-teaming a concrete setup representative of a likely future use case, we demonstrate a novel attack vector, OMNI-LEAK, that compromises several agents to leak sensitive data through a single indirect prompt injection, even in the \textit{presence of data access control}. We report the susceptibility of frontier models to different categories of attacks, finding that both reasoning and non-reasoning models are vulnerable, even when the attacker lacks insider knowledge of the implementation details. Our work highlights the importance of safety research to generalize from single-agent to multi-agent settings, in order to reduce the serious risks of real-world privacy breaches and financial losses and overall public trust in AI agents.