This study investigates the impact of face image background correction through segmentation on face recognition and morphing attack detection performance in realistic, unconstrained image capture scenarios. The motivation is driven by operational biometric systems such as the European Entry/Exit System (EES), which require facial enrolment at airports and other border crossing points where controlled backgrounds usually required for such captures cannot always be guaranteed, as well as by accessibility needs that may necessitate image capture outside traditional office environments. By analyzing how such preprocessing steps influence both recognition accuracy and security mechanisms, this work addresses a critical gap between usability-driven image normalization and the reliability requirements of large-scale biometric identification systems. Our study evaluates a comprehensive range of segmentation techniques, three families of morphing attack detection methods, and four distinct face recognition models, using databases that include both controlled and in-the-wild image captures. The results reveal consistent patterns linking segmentation to both recognition performance and face image quality. Additionally, segmentation is shown to systematically influence morphing attack detection performance. These findings highlight the need for careful consideration when deploying such preprocessing techniques in operational biometric systems.

As text-to-image diffusion models become increasingly deployed in real-world applications, concerns about backdoor attacks have gained significant attention. Prior work on text-based backdoor attacks has largely focused on diffusion models conditioned on a single lightweight text encoder. However, more recent diffusion models that incorporate multiple large-scale text encoders remain underexplored in this context. Given the substantially increased number of trainable parameters introduced by multiple text encoders, an important question is whether backdoor attacks can remain both efficient and effective in such settings. In this work, we study Stable Diffusion 3, which uses three distinct text encoders and has not yet been systematically analyzed for text-encoder-based backdoor vulnerabilities. To understand the role of text encoders in backdoor attacks, we define four categories of attack targets and identify the minimal sets of encoders required to achieve effective performance for each attack objective. Based on this, we further propose Multi-Encoder Lightweight aTtacks (MELT), which trains only low-rank adapters while keeping the pretrained text encoder weight frozen. We demonstrate that tuning fewer than 0.2% of the total encoder parameters is sufficient for successful backdoor attacks on Stable Diffusion 3, revealing previously underexplored vulnerabilities in practical attack scenarios in multi-encoder settings.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of generating functional source code, raising concerns about authorship, accountability, and security. While detecting AI-generated code is critical, existing datasets and benchmarks are narrow, typically limited to binary human-machine classification under in-distribution settings. To bridge this gap, we introduce $\emph{AICD Bench}$, the most comprehensive benchmark for AI-generated code detection. It spans $\emph{2M examples}$, $\emph{77 models}$ across $\emph{11 families}$, and $\emph{9 programming languages}$, including recent reasoning models. Beyond scale, AICD Bench introduces three realistic detection tasks: ($\emph{i}$)~$\emph{Robust Binary Classification}$ under distribution shifts in language and domain, ($\emph{ii}$)~$\emph{Model Family Attribution}$, grouping generators by architectural lineage, and ($\emph{iii}$)~$\emph{Fine-Grained Human-Machine Classification}$ across human, machine, hybrid, and adversarial code. Extensive evaluation on neural and classical detectors shows that performance remains far below practical usability, particularly under distribution shift and for hybrid or adversarial code. We release AICD Bench as a $\emph{unified, challenging evaluation suite}$ to drive the next generation of robust approaches for AI-generated code detection. The data and the code are available at https://huggingface.co/AICD-bench}.

We identify a novel phenomenon in language models: benign fine-tuning of frontier models can lead to privacy collapse. We find that diverse, subtle patterns in training data can degrade contextual privacy, including optimisation for helpfulness, exposure to user information, emotional and subjective dialogue, and debugging code printing internal variables, among others. Fine-tuned models lose their ability to reason about contextual privacy norms, share information inappropriately with tools, and violate memory boundaries across contexts. Privacy collapse is a ``silent failure'' because models maintain high performance on standard safety and utility benchmarks whilst exhibiting severe privacy vulnerabilities. Our experiments show evidence of privacy collapse across six models (closed and open weight), five fine-tuning datasets (real-world and controlled data), and two task categories (agentic and memory-based). Our mechanistic analysis reveals that privacy representations are uniquely fragile to fine-tuning, compared to task-relevant features which are preserved. Our results reveal a critical gap in current safety evaluations, in particular for the deployment of specialised agents.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used to automate chart generation from data tables, enabling efficient data analysis and reporting but also introducing new misuse risks. In this work, we introduce ChartAttack, a novel framework for evaluating how MLLMs can be misused to generate misleading charts at scale. ChartAttack injects misleaders into chart designs, aiming to induce incorrect interpretations of the underlying data. Furthermore, we create AttackViz, a chart question-answering (QA) dataset where each (chart specification, QA) pair is labeled with effective misleaders and their induced incorrect answers. Experiments in in-domain and cross-domain settings show that ChartAttack significantly degrades the QA performance of MLLM readers, reducing accuracy by an average of 19.6 points and 14.9 points, respectively. A human study further shows an average 20.2 point drop in accuracy for participants exposed to misleading charts generated by ChartAttack. Our findings highlight an urgent need for robustness and security considerations in the design, evaluation, and deployment of MLLM-based chart generation systems. We make our code and data publicly available.