Agentic safety triggers aren't textual safety triggers — MCP attacks that beat SOTA guardrails more than half the time (code + dataset) [R]
Most safety alignment work treats "detect the attack" as a text classification problem — does the prompt contain language the model's safety guardrails should catch. That assumption breaks down for LLM agents with real tool access. Here's a concrete case: take a known, public security vulnerability (a CVE), work out the sequence of tool calls that would exploit it, then have an LLM rewrite that as an ordinary-sounding request. Nothing in the resulting text looks like an attack — because the "attack" isn't i
评论
?
参与讨论