LoRA adapters let users fine-tune large language models (LLMs) efficiently. However, LoRA adapters are shared through open repositories like Hugging Face Hub \citep{huggingface_hub_docs}, making them vulnerable to backdoor attacks. Current detection methods require running the model with test input data -- making them impractical for screening thousands of adapters where the trigger for backdoor behavior is unknown. We detect poisoned adapters by analyzing their weight matrices directly, without running the model -- making our method data-agnostic. Our method extracts simple statistics -- how concentrated the singular values are, their entropy, and the distribution shape -- and flags adapters that deviate from normal patterns. We evaluate the method on 500 LoRA adapters -- 400 clean, and 100 poisoned for Llama-3.2-3B on instruction and reasoning datasets: Alpaca, Dolly, GSM8K, ARC-Challenge, SQuADv2, NaturalQuestions, HumanEval, and GLUE dataset. We achieve 97\% detection accuracy with less than 2\% false positives.

Prompt injection attacks have become an increasing vulnerability for LLM applications, where adversarial prompts exploit indirect input channels such as emails or user-generated content to circumvent alignment safeguards and induce harmful or unintended outputs. Despite advances in alignment, even state-of-the-art LLMs remain broadly vulnerable to adversarial prompts, underscoring the urgent need for robust, productive, and generalizable detection mechanisms beyond inefficient, model-specific patches. In this work, we propose Zero-Shot Embedding Drift Detection (ZEDD), a lightweight, low-engineering-overhead framework that identifies both direct and indirect prompt injection attempts by quantifying semantic shifts in embedding space between benign and suspect inputs. ZEDD operates without requiring access to model internals, prior knowledge of attack types, or task-specific retraining, enabling efficient zero-shot deployment across diverse LLM architectures. Our method uses adversarial-clean prompt pairs and measures embedding drift via cosine similarity to capture subtle adversarial manipulations inherent to real-world injection attacks. To ensure robust evaluation, we assemble and re-annotate the comprehensive LLMail-Inject dataset spanning five injection categories derived from publicly available sources. Extensive experiments demonstrate that embedding drift is a robust and transferable signal, outperforming traditional methods in detection accuracy and operational efficiency. With greater than 93% accuracy in classifying prompt injections across model architectures like Llama 3, Qwen 2, and Mistral and a false positive rate of <3%, our approach offers a lightweight, scalable defense layer that integrates into existing LLM pipelines, addressing a critical gap in securing LLM-powered systems to withstand adaptive adversarial threats.

As AI capabilities advance, we increasingly rely on powerful models to decompose complex tasks $\unicode{x2013}$ but what if the decomposer itself is malicious? Factored cognition protocols decompose complex tasks into simpler child tasks: one model creates the decomposition, while other models implement the child tasks in isolation. Prior work uses trusted (weaker but reliable) models for decomposition, which limits usefulness for tasks where decomposition itself is challenging. We introduce Factor($U$,$T$), in which an untrusted (stronger but potentially malicious) model decomposes while trusted models implement child tasks. Can monitors detect malicious activity when observing only natural language task instructions, rather than complete solutions? We baseline and red team Factor($U$,$T$) in control evaluations on BigCodeBench, a dataset of Python coding tasks. Monitors distinguishing malicious from honest decompositions perform poorly (AUROC 0.52) compared to monitors evaluating complete Python solutions (AUROC 0.96). Furthermore, Factor($D$,$U$), which uses a trusted decomposer and monitors concrete child solutions, achieves excellent discrimination (AUROC 0.96) and strong safety (1.2% ASR), demonstrating that implementation-context monitoring succeeds where decomposition-only monitoring fails.