The widespread deployment of general-purpose AI (GPAI) systems introduces significant new risks. Yet the infrastructure, practices, and norms for reporting flaws in GPAI systems remain seriously underdeveloped, lagging far behind more established fields like software security. Based on a collaboration between experts from the fields of software security, machine learning, law, social science, and policy, we identify key gaps in the evaluation and reporting of flaws in GPAI systems. We call for three interventions to advance system safety. First, we propose using standardized AI flaw reports and rules of engagement for researchers in order to ease the process of submitting, reproducing, and triaging flaws in GPAI systems. Second, we propose GPAI system providers adopt broadly-scoped flaw disclosure programs, borrowing from bug bounties, with legal safe harbors to protect researchers. Third, we advocate for the development of improved infrastructure to coordinate distribution of flaw reports across the many stakeholders who may be impacted. These interventions are increasingly urgent, as evidenced by the prevalence of jailbreaks and other flaws that can transfer across different providers' GPAI systems. By promoting robust reporting and coordination in the AI ecosystem, these proposals could significantly improve the safety, security, and accountability of GPAI systems.

We introduce AutoAdvExBench, a benchmark to evaluate if large language models (LLMs) can autonomously exploit defenses to adversarial examples. Unlike existing security benchmarks that often serve as proxies for real-world tasks, bench directly measures LLMs' success on tasks regularly performed by machine learning security experts. This approach offers a significant advantage: if a LLM could solve the challenges presented in bench, it would immediately present practical utility for adversarial machine learning researchers. We then design a strong agent that is capable of breaking 75% of CTF-like ("homework exercise") adversarial example defenses. However, we show that this agent is only able to succeed on 13% of the real-world defenses in our benchmark, indicating the large gap between difficulty in attacking "real" code, and CTF-like code. In contrast, a stronger LLM that can attack 21% of real defenses only succeeds on 54% of CTF-like defenses. We make this benchmark available at https://github.com/ethz-spylab/AutoAdvExBench.

In the past decade, considerable research effort has been devoted to securing machine learning (ML) models that operate in adversarial settings. Yet, progress has been slow even for simple "toy" problems (e.g., robustness to small adversarial perturbations) and is often hindered by non-rigorous evaluations. Today, adversarial ML research has shifted towards studying larger, general-purpose language models. In this position paper, we argue that the situation is now even worse: in the era of LLMs, the field of adversarial ML studies problems that are (1) less clearly defined, (2) harder to solve, and (3) even more challenging to evaluate. As a result, we caution that yet another decade of work on adversarial ML may fail to produce meaningful progress.

It is now common to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) by having humans manually vote to evaluate model outputs, in contrast to typical benchmarks that evaluate knowledge or skill at some particular task. Chatbot Arena, the most popular benchmark of this type, ranks models by asking users to select the better response between two randomly selected models (without revealing which model was responsible for the generations). These platforms are widely trusted as a fair and accurate measure of LLM capabilities. In this paper, we show that if bot protection and other defenses are not implemented, these voting-based benchmarks are potentially vulnerable to adversarial manipulation. Specifically, we show that an attacker can alter the leaderboard (to promote their favorite model or demote competitors) at the cost of roughly a thousand votes (verified in a simulated, offline version of Chatbot Arena). Our attack consists of two steps: first, we show how an attacker can determine which model was used to generate a given reply with more than $95\%$ accuracy; and then, the attacker can use this information to consistently vote for (or against) a target model. Working with the Chatbot Arena developers, we identify, propose, and implement mitigations to improve the robustness of Chatbot Arena against adversarial manipulation, which, based on our analysis, substantially increases the cost of such attacks. Some of these defenses were present before our collaboration, such as bot protection with Cloudflare, malicious user detection, and rate limiting. Others, including reCAPTCHA and login are being integrated to strengthen the security in Chatbot Arena.

As the outputs of generative AI (GenAI) techniques improve in quality, it becomes increasingly challenging to distinguish them from human-created content. Watermarking schemes are a promising approach to address the problem of distinguishing between AI and human-generated content. These schemes embed hidden signals within AI-generated content to enable reliable detection. While watermarking is not a silver bullet for addressing all risks associated with GenAI, it can play a crucial role in enhancing AI safety and trustworthiness by combating misinformation and deception. This paper presents a comprehensive overview of watermarking techniques for GenAI, beginning with the need for watermarking from historical and regulatory perspectives. We formalize the definitions and desired properties of watermarking schemes and examine the key objectives and threat models for existing approaches. Practical evaluation strategies are also explored, providing insights into the development of robust watermarking techniques capable of resisting various attacks. Additionally, we review recent representative works, highlight open challenges, and discuss potential directions for this emerging field. By offering a thorough understanding of watermarking in GenAI, this work aims to guide researchers in advancing watermarking methods and applications, and support policymakers in addressing the broader implications of GenAI.

Stakeholders -- from model developers to policymakers -- seek to minimize the dual-use risks of large language models (LLMs). An open challenge to this goal is whether technical safeguards can impede the misuse of LLMs, even when models are customizable via fine-tuning or when model weights are fully open. In response, several recent studies have proposed methods to produce durable LLM safeguards for open-weight LLMs that can withstand adversarial modifications of the model's weights via fine-tuning. This holds the promise of raising adversaries' costs even under strong threat models where adversaries can directly fine-tune model weights. However, in this paper, we urge for more careful characterization of the limits of these approaches. Through several case studies, we demonstrate that even evaluating these defenses is exceedingly difficult and can easily mislead audiences into thinking that safeguards are more durable than they really are. We draw lessons from the evaluation pitfalls that we identify and suggest future research carefully cabin claims to more constrained, well-defined, and rigorously examined threat models, which can provide more useful and candid assessments to stakeholders.

Recent work has shown it is possible to construct adversarial examples that cause aligned language models to emit harmful strings or perform harmful behavior. Existing attacks work either in the white-box setting (with full access to the model weights), or through transferability: the phenomenon that adversarial examples crafted on one model often remain effective on other models. We improve on prior work with a query-based attack that leverages API access to a remote language model to construct adversarial examples that cause the model to emit harmful strings with (much) higher probability than with transfer-only attacks. We validate our attack on GPT-3.5 and OpenAI's safety classifier; we can cause GPT-3.5 to emit harmful strings that current transfer attacks fail at, and we can evade the OpenAI and Llama Guard safety classifiers with nearly 100% probability.

Large language models memorize parts of their training data. Memorizing short snippets and facts is required to answer questions about the world and to be fluent in any language. But models have also been shown to reproduce long verbatim sequences of memorized text when prompted by a motivated adversary. In this work, we investigate an intermediate regime of memorization that we call non-adversarial reproduction, where we quantify the overlap between model responses and pretraining data when responding to natural and benign prompts. For a variety of innocuous prompt categories (e.g., writing a letter or a tutorial), we show that up to 15% of the text output by popular conversational language models overlaps with snippets from the Internet. In worst cases, we find generations where 100% of the content can be found exactly online. For the same tasks, we find that human-written text has far less overlap with Internet data. We further study whether prompting strategies can close this reproduction gap between models and humans. While appropriate prompting can reduce non-adversarial reproduction on average, we find that mitigating worst-case reproduction of training data requires stronger defenses -- even for benign interactions.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models improve the efficiency and scalability of dense language models by routing each token to a small number of experts in each layer. In this paper, we show how an adversary that can arrange for their queries to appear in the same batch of examples as a victim's queries can exploit Expert-Choice-Routing to fully disclose a victim's prompt. We successfully demonstrate the effectiveness of this attack on a two-layer Mixtral model, exploiting the tie-handling behavior of the torch.topk CUDA implementation. Our results show that we can extract the entire prompt using $O({VM}^2)$ queries (with vocabulary size $V$ and prompt length $M$) or 100 queries on average per token in the setting we consider. This is the first attack to exploit architectural flaws for the purpose of extracting user prompts, introducing a new class of LLM vulnerabilities.

Scaling up language models has significantly increased their capabilities. But larger models are slower models, and so there is now an extensive body of work (e.g., speculative sampling or parallel decoding) that improves the (average case) efficiency of language model generation. But these techniques introduce data-dependent timing characteristics. We show it is possible to exploit these timing differences to mount a timing attack. By monitoring the (encrypted) network traffic between a victim user and a remote language model, we can learn information about the content of messages by noting when responses are faster or slower. With complete black-box access, on open source systems we show how it is possible to learn the topic of a user's conversation (e.g., medical advice vs. coding assistance) with 90%+ precision, and on production systems like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude we can distinguish between specific messages or infer the user's language. We further show that an active adversary can leverage a boosting attack to recover PII placed in messages (e.g., phone numbers or credit card numbers) for open source systems. We conclude with potential defenses and directions for future work.