Milad Nasr

How should we evaluate the robustness of language model defenses? Current defenses against jailbreaks and prompt injections (which aim to prevent an attacker from eliciting harmful knowledge or remotely triggering malicious actions, respectively) are typically evaluated either against a static set of harmful attack strings, or against computationally weak optimization methods that were not designed with the defense in mind. We argue that this evaluation process is flawed. Instead, we should evaluate defenses against adaptive attackers who explicitly modify their attack strategy to counter a defense's design while spending considerable resources to optimize their objective. By systematically tuning and scaling general optimization techniques-gradient descent, reinforcement learning, random search, and human-guided exploration-we bypass 12 recent defenses (based on a diverse set of techniques) with attack success rate above 90% for most; importantly, the majority of defenses originally reported near-zero attack success rates. We believe that future defense work must consider stronger attacks, such as the ones we describe, in order to make reliable and convincing claims of robustness.

As deep learning models become widely deployed as components within larger production systems, their individual shortcomings can create system-level vulnerabilities with real-world impact. This paper studies how adversarial attacks targeting an ML component can degrade or bypass an entire production-grade malware detection system, performing a case study analysis of Gmail's pipeline where file-type identification relies on a ML model. The malware detection pipeline in use by Gmail contains a machine learning model that routes each potential malware sample to a specialized malware classifier to improve accuracy and performance. This model, called Magika, has been open sourced. By designing adversarial examples that fool Magika, we can cause the production malware service to incorrectly route malware to an unsuitable malware detector thereby increasing our chance of evading detection. Specifically, by changing just 13 bytes of a malware sample, we can successfully evade Magika in 90% of cases and thereby allow us to send malware files over Gmail. We then turn our attention to defenses, and develop an approach to mitigate the severity of these types of attacks. For our defended production model, a highly resourced adversary requires 50 bytes to achieve just a 20% attack success rate. We implement this defense, and, thanks to a collaboration with Google engineers, it has already been deployed in production for the Gmail classifier.

Instilling reasoning capabilities in large models (LMs) using reasoning training (RT) significantly improves LMs' performances. Thus Audio Reasoning Models (ARMs), i.e., audio LMs that can reason, are becoming increasingly popular. However, no work has studied the safety of ARMs against jailbreak attacks that aim to elicit harmful responses from target models. To this end, first, we show that standard RT with appropriate safety reasoning data can protect ARMs from vanilla audio jailbreaks, but cannot protect them against our proposed simple yet effective jailbreaks. We show that this is because of the significant representation drift between vanilla and advanced jailbreaks which forces the target ARMs to emit harmful responses. Based on this observation, we propose Rebellion, a robust RT that trains ARMs to be robust to the worst-case representation drift. All our results are on Qwen2-Audio; they demonstrate that Rebellion: 1) can protect against advanced audio jailbreaks without compromising performance on benign tasks, and 2) significantly improves accuracy-safety trade-off over standard RT method.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has emerged as a powerful technique for enhancing large language models' capabilities by generating intermediate reasoning steps for complex tasks. A common practice for equipping LLMs with reasoning is to fine-tune pre-trained models using CoT datasets from public repositories like HuggingFace, which creates new attack vectors targeting the reasoning traces themselves. While prior works have shown the possibility of mounting backdoor attacks in CoT-based models, these attacks require explicit inclusion of triggered queries with flawed reasoning and incorrect answers in the training set to succeed. Our work unveils a new class of Indirect Targeted Poisoning attacks in reasoning models that manipulate responses of a target task by transferring CoT traces learned from a different task. Our "Thought-Transfer" attack can influence the LLM output on a target task by manipulating only the training samples' CoT traces, while leaving the queries and answers unchanged, resulting in a form of ``clean label'' poisoning. Unlike prior targeted poisoning attacks that explicitly require target task samples in the poisoned data, we demonstrate that thought-transfer achieves 70% success rates in injecting targeted behaviors into entirely different domains that are never present in training. Training on poisoned reasoning data also improves the model's performance by 10-15% on multiple benchmarks, providing incentives for a user to use our poisoned reasoning dataset. Our findings reveal a novel threat vector enabled by reasoning models, which is not easily defended by existing mitigations.