LLM based agents are increasingly deployed in high stakes settings where they process external data sources such as emails, documents, and code repositories. This creates exposure to indirect prompt injection attacks, where adversarial instructions embedded in external content manipulate agent behavior without user awareness. A critical but underexplored dimension of this threat is concealment: since users tend to observe only an agent's final response, an attack can conceal its existence by presenting no clue of compromise in the final user facing response while successfully executing harmful actions. This leaves users unaware of the manipulation and likely to accept harmful outcomes as legitimate. We present findings from a large scale public red teaming competition evaluating this dual objective across three agent settings: tool calling, coding, and computer use. The competition attracted 464 participants who submitted 272000 attack attempts against 13 frontier models, yielding 8648 successful attacks across 41 scenarios. All models proved vulnerable, with attack success rates ranging from 0.5% (Claude Opus 4.5) to 8.5% (Gemini 2.5 Pro). We identify universal attack strategies that transfer across 21 of 41 behaviors and multiple model families, suggesting fundamental weaknesses in instruction following architectures. Capability and robustness showed weak correlation, with Gemini 2.5 Pro exhibiting both high capability and high vulnerability. To address benchmark saturation and obsoleteness, we will endeavor to deliver quarterly updates through continued red teaming competitions. We open source the competition environment for use in evaluations, along with 95 successful attacks against Qwen that did not transfer to any closed source model. We share model-specific attack data with respective frontier labs and the full dataset with the UK AISI and US CAISI to support robustness research.

Instruction hierarchy (IH) defines how LLMs prioritize system, developer, user, and tool instructions under conflict, providing a concrete, trust-ordered policy for resolving instruction conflicts. IH is key to defending against jailbreaks, system prompt extractions, and agentic prompt injections. However, robust IH behavior is difficult to train: IH failures can be confounded with instruction-following failures, conflicts can be nuanced, and models can learn shortcuts such as overrefusing. We introduce IH-Challenge, a reinforcement learning training dataset, to address these difficulties. Fine-tuning GPT-5-Mini on IH-Challenge with online adversarial example generation improves IH robustness by +10.0% on average across 16 in-distribution, out-of-distribution, and human red-teaming benchmarks (84.1% to 94.1%), reduces unsafe behavior from 6.6% to 0.7% while improving helpfulness on general safety evaluations, and saturates an internal static agentic prompt injection evaluation, with minimal capability regression. We release the IH-Challenge dataset (https://huggingface.co/datasets/openai/ih-challenge) to support future research on robust instruction hierarchy.

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.

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.

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.