Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming a prominent generative AI tool, where the user enters a query and the LLM generates an answer.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have spurred transformative applications in various domains, ranging from open-source to proprietary LLMs. However, jailbreak attacks, which aim to break safety alignment and user compliance by tricking the target LLMs into answering harmful and risky responses, are becoming an urgent concern. The practice of red-teaming for LLMs is to proactively explore potential risks and error-prone instances before the release of frontier AI technology. This paper proposes an agentic workflow to automate and scale the red-teaming process of LLMs through the Composition-of-Principles (CoP) framework, where human users provide a set of red-teaming principles as instructions to an AI agent to automatically orchestrate effective red-teaming strategies and generate jailbreak prompts. Distinct from existing red-teaming methods, our CoP framework provides a unified and extensible framework to encompass and orchestrate human-provided red-teaming principles to enable the automated discovery of new red-teaming strategies. When tested against leading LLMs, CoP reveals unprecedented safety risks by finding novel jailbreak prompts and improving the best-known single-turn attack success rate by up to 19.0 times.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have developed rapidly in web services, delivering unprecedented capabilities while amplifying societal risks. Existing works tend to focus on either isolated jailbreak attacks or static defenses, neglecting the dynamic interplay between evolving threats and safeguards in real-world web contexts. To mitigate these challenges, we propose ACE-Safety (Adversarial Co-Evolution for LLM Safety), a novel framework that jointly optimize attack and defense models by seamlessly integrating two key innovative procedures: (1) Group-aware Strategy-guided Monte Carlo Tree Search (GS-MCTS), which efficiently explores jailbreak strategies to uncover vulnerabilities and generate diverse adversarial samples; (2) Adversarial Curriculum Tree-aware Group Policy Optimization (AC-TGPO), which jointly trains attack and defense LLMs with challenging samples via curriculum reinforcement learning, enabling robust mutual improvement. Evaluations across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that our method outperforms existing attack and defense approaches, and provides a feasible pathway for developing LLMs that can sustainably support responsible AI ecosystems.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) introduce a new generation paradigm of explicitly reasoning before answering, leading to remarkable improvements in complex tasks. However, they pose great safety risks against harmful queries and adversarial attacks. While recent mainstream safety efforts on LRMs, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), improve safety performance, we find that SFT-aligned models struggle to generalize to unseen jailbreak prompts. After thorough investigation of LRMs' generation, we identify a safety aha moment that can activate safety reasoning and lead to a safe response. This aha moment typically appears in the `key sentence', which follows models' query understanding process and can indicate whether the model will proceed safely. Based on these insights, we propose SafeKey, including two complementary objectives to better activate the safety aha moment in the key sentence: (1) a Dual-Path Safety Head to enhance the safety signal in the model's internal representations before the key sentence, and (2) a Query-Mask Modeling objective to improve the models' attention on its query understanding, which has important safety hints. Experiments across multiple safety benchmarks demonstrate that our methods significantly improve safety generalization to a wide range of jailbreak attacks and out-of-distribution harmful prompts, lowering the average harmfulness rate by 9.6\%, while maintaining general abilities. Our analysis reveals how SafeKey enhances safety by reshaping internal attention and improving the quality of hidden representations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities across a wide range of tasks, yet their safety mechanisms remain susceptible to adversarial attacks that exploit cognitive biases -- systematic deviations from rational judgment. Unlike prior jailbreaking approaches focused on prompt engineering or algorithmic manipulation, this work highlights the overlooked power of multi-bias interactions in undermining LLM safeguards. We propose CognitiveAttack, a novel red-teaming framework that systematically leverages both individual and combined cognitive biases. By integrating supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, CognitiveAttack generates prompts that embed optimized bias combinations, effectively bypassing safety protocols while maintaining high attack success rates. Experimental results reveal significant vulnerabilities across 30 diverse LLMs, particularly in open-source models. CognitiveAttack achieves a substantially higher attack success rate compared to the SOTA black-box method PAP (60.1% vs. 31.6%), exposing critical limitations in current defense mechanisms. These findings highlight multi-bias interactions as a powerful yet underexplored attack vector. This work introduces a novel interdisciplinary perspective by bridging cognitive science and LLM safety, paving the way for more robust and human-aligned AI systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in various tasks. However, they remain exposed to jailbreak attacks, eliciting harmful responses. The nested scenario strategy has been increasingly adopted across various methods, demonstrating immense potential. Nevertheless, these methods are easily detectable due to their prominent malicious intentions. In this work, we are the first to find and systematically verify that LLMs' alignment defenses are not sensitive to nested scenarios, where these scenarios are highly semantically relevant to the queries and incorporate targeted toxic knowledge. This is a crucial yet insufficiently explored direction. Based on this, we propose RTS-Attack (Semantically Relevant Nested Scenarios with Targeted Toxic Knowledge), an adaptive and automated framework to examine LLMs' alignment. By building scenarios highly relevant to the queries and integrating targeted toxic knowledge, RTS-Attack bypasses the alignment defenses of LLMs. Moreover, the jailbreak prompts generated by RTS-Attack are free from harmful queries, leading to outstanding concealment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that RTS-Attack exhibits superior performance in both efficiency and universality compared to the baselines across diverse advanced LLMs, including GPT-4o, Llama3-70b, and Gemini-pro. Our complete code is available at https://github.com/nercode/Work. WARNING: THIS PAPER CONTAINS POTENTIALLY HARMFUL CONTENT.

The rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) has brought both transformative applications and new security risks, including jailbreak attacks that bypass alignment safeguards to elicit harmful outputs. Existing automated jailbreak generation approaches e.g. AutoDAN, suffer from limited mutation diversity, shallow fitness evaluation, and fragile keyword-based detection. To address these limitations, we propose ForgeDAN, a novel evolutionary framework for generating semantically coherent and highly effective adversarial prompts against aligned LLMs. First, ForgeDAN introduces multi-strategy textual perturbations across \textit{character, word, and sentence-level} operations to enhance attack diversity; then we employ interpretable semantic fitness evaluation based on a text similarity model to guide the evolutionary process toward semantically relevant and harmful outputs; finally, ForgeDAN integrates dual-dimensional jailbreak judgment, leveraging an LLM-based classifier to jointly assess model compliance and output harmfulness, thereby reducing false positives and improving detection effectiveness. Our evaluation demonstrates ForgeDAN achieves high jailbreaking success rates while maintaining naturalness and stealth, outperforming existing SOTA solutions.

As Large Language Models become increasingly integral to various domains, their potential to generate harmful responses has prompted significant societal and regulatory concerns. In response, governments have issued ethics guidelines to promote the development of trustworthy AI. However, these guidelines are typically high-level demands for developers and testers, leaving a gap in translating them into actionable testing questions to verify LLM compliance. To address this challenge, we introduce GUARD (\textbf{G}uideline \textbf{U}pholding Test through \textbf{A}daptive \textbf{R}ole-play and Jailbreak \textbf{D}iagnostics), a testing method designed to operationalize guidelines into specific guideline-violating questions that assess LLM adherence. To implement this, GUARD uses automated generation of guideline-violating questions based on government-issued guidelines, thereby testing whether responses comply with these guidelines. When responses directly violate guidelines, GUARD reports inconsistencies. Furthermore, for responses that do not directly violate guidelines, GUARD integrates the concept of ``jailbreaks'' to diagnostics, named GUARD-JD, which creates scenarios that provoke unethical or guideline-violating responses, effectively identifying potential scenarios that could bypass built-in safety mechanisms. Our method finally culminates in a compliance report, delineating the extent of adherence and highlighting any violations. We have empirically validated the effectiveness of GUARD on seven LLMs, including Vicuna-13B, LongChat-7B, Llama2-7B, Llama-3-8B, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4o, and Claude-3.7, by testing compliance under three government-issued guidelines and conducting jailbreak diagnostics. Additionally, GUARD-JD can transfer jailbreak diagnostics to vision-language models, demonstrating its usage in promoting reliable LLM-based applications.

The widespread deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) as public-facing web services and APIs has made their security a core concern for the web ecosystem. Jailbreak attacks, as one of the significant threats to LLMs, have recently attracted extensive research. In this paper, we reveal a jailbreak strategy which can effectively evade current defense strategies. It can extract valuable information from failed or partially successful attack attempts and contains self-evolution from attack interactions, resulting in sufficient strategy diversity and adaptability. Inspired by continuous learning and modular design principles, we propose ASTRA, a jailbreak framework that autonomously discovers, retrieves, and evolves attack strategies to achieve more efficient and adaptive attacks. To enable this autonomous evolution, we design a closed-loop "attack-evaluate-distill-reuse" core mechanism that not only generates attack prompts but also automatically distills and generalizes reusable attack strategies from every interaction. To systematically accumulate and apply this attack knowledge, we introduce a three-tier strategy library that categorizes strategies into Effective, Promising, and Ineffective based on their performance scores. The strategy library not only provides precise guidance for attack generation but also possesses exceptional extensibility and transferability. We conduct extensive experiments under a black-box setting, and the results show that ASTRA achieves an average Attack Success Rate (ASR) of 82.7%, significantly outperforming baselines.