Xinfeng Li
Publications
ICO: Enhancing Semantic-Shift Jailbreaks via Iterative Context Optimization
Foundation models have achieved remarkable success across diverse tasks, but they remain vulnerable. To investigate such vulnerabilities, semantic-shift jailbreaks have recently emerged as a promising attack paradigm. They bypass explicit safety mechanisms by replacing harmful terms in original harmful questions with benign alternatives and leveraging contextual information to induce the target model to reinterpret these alternatives as their corresponding harmful concepts. However, existing semantic-shift jailbreaks often achieve limited effectiveness. In this work, we reveal that this limitation arises from overlooking the semantic-shift capability of contexts. Through systematic analysis, we find that contexts exhibit substantially different abilities in inducing semantic shifts: contexts with stronger semantic-shift capabilities are more likely to guide models toward recovering harmful meanings and achieving successful jailbreaks. Based on this finding, we systematically identify and distill the characteristics of effective contexts and propose a black-box context-aware semantic-shift jailbreak framework with Iterative Context Optimization (ICO). In each iteration, ICO leverages these characteristics and feedback from the target model to optimize contexts. Extensive experiments on three datasets and eight target foundation models demonstrate that ICO consistently outperforms eight state-of-the-art baselines, achieving an average attack success rate of 74.6%.
You Told Me to Do It: Measuring Instructional Text-induced Private Data Leakage in LLM Agents
High-privilege LLM agents that autonomously process external documentation are increasingly trusted to automate tasks by reading and executing project instructions, yet they are granted terminal access, filesystem control, and outbound network connectivity with minimal security oversight. We identify and systematically measure a fundamental vulnerability in this trust model, which we term the \emph{Trusted Executor Dilemma}: agents execute documentation-embedded instructions, including adversarial ones, at high rates because they cannot distinguish malicious directives from legitimate setup guidance. This vulnerability is a structural consequence of the instruction-following design paradigm, not an implementation bug. To structure our measurement, we formalize a three-dimensional taxonomy covering linguistic disguise, structural obfuscation, and semantic abstraction, and construct \textbf{ReadSecBench}, a benchmark of 500 real-world README files enabling reproducible evaluation. Experiments on the commercially deployed computer-use agent show end-to-end exfiltration success rates up to 85\%, consistent across five programming languages and three injection positions. Cross-model evaluation on four LLM families in a simulation environment confirms that semantic compliance with injected instructions is consistent across model families. A 15-participant user study yields a 0\% detection rate across all participants, and evaluation of 12 rule-based and 6 LLM-based defenses shows neither category achieves reliable detection without unacceptable false-positive rates. Together, these results quantify a persistent \emph{Semantic-Safety Gap} between agents' functional compliance and their security awareness, establishing that documentation-embedded instruction injection is a persistent and currently unmitigated threat to high-privilege LLM agent deployments.
"Are You Sure?": An Empirical Study of Human Perception Vulnerability in LLM-Driven Agentic Systems
Large language model (LLM) agents are rapidly becoming trusted copilots in high-stakes domains like software development and healthcare. However, this deepening trust introduces a novel attack surface: Agent-Mediated Deception (AMD), where compromised agents are weaponized against their human users. While extensive research focuses on agent-centric threats, human susceptibility to deception by a compromised agent remains unexplored. We present the first large-scale empirical study with 303 participants to measure human susceptibility to AMD. This is based on HAT-Lab (Human-Agent Trust Laboratory), a high-fidelity research platform we develop, featuring nine carefully crafted scenarios spanning everyday and professional domains (e.g., healthcare, software development, human resources). Our 10 key findings reveal significant vulnerabilities and provide future defense perspectives. Specifically, only 8.6% of participants perceive AMD attacks, while domain experts show increased susceptibility in certain scenarios. We identify six cognitive failure modes in users and find that their risk awareness often fails to translate to protective behavior. The defense analysis reveals that effective warnings should interrupt workflows with low verification costs. With experiential learning based on HAT-Lab, over 90% of users who perceive risks report increased caution against AMD. This work provides empirical evidence and a platform for human-centric agent security research.