Eliot Krzysztof Jones

Eliot Krzysztof Jones, Mateusz Dziemian, Matt Fredrikson et al.

Agentic scaffolds have dramatically improved LLM performance on complex, long-horizon tasks, yielding both broad benefits and amplified risks in domains like cybersecurity. Existing benchmarks for AI agents in cybersecurity focus mainly on measuring proficiency--how effectively agents can complete offensive security tasks--but neglect a critical question: when and how should agents refuse harmful requests? We present the first framework for establishing refusal boundaries in offensive security contexts. Our framework defines (1) principled criteria for when tasks should be refused, (2) categories of tasks that warrant refusal, and (3) evaluation methodology for measuring agent robustness under both benign and adversarial conditions. We apply this framework to assess how current LLM-powered agents adhere to appropriate refusal boundaries across a range of web-based offensive security scenarios, finding that 6 of 8 frontier models tested show near-zero refusal rates, with only 2 models (GPT-5.2 and GPT-5.1 Codex) demonstrating any meaningful refusal behavior.

Eliot Krzysztof Jones, Alexander Robey, Andy Zou et al.

The emergence of vision-language-action models (VLAs) for end-to-end control is reshaping the field of robotics by enabling the fusion of multimodal sensory inputs at the billion-parameter scale. The capabilities of VLAs stem primarily from their architectures, which are often based on frontier large language models (LLMs). However, LLMs are known to be susceptible to adversarial misuse, and given the significant physical risks inherent to robotics, questions remain regarding the extent to which VLAs inherit these vulnerabilities. Motivated by these concerns, in this work we initiate the study of adversarial attacks on VLA-controlled robots. Our main algorithmic contribution is the adaptation and application of LLM jailbreaking attacks to obtain complete control authority over VLAs. We find that textual attacks, which are applied once at the beginning of a rollout, facilitate full reachability of the action space of commonly used VLAs and often persist over longer horizons. This differs significantly from LLM jailbreaking literature, as attacks in the real world do not have to be semantically linked to notions of harm. We make all code available at https://github.com/eliotjones1/robogcg .

Justin W. Lin, Eliot Krzysztof Jones, Donovan Julian Jasper et al.

We present the first comprehensive evaluation of AI agents against human cybersecurity professionals in a live enterprise environment. We evaluate ten cybersecurity professionals alongside six existing AI agents and ARTEMIS, our new agent scaffold, on a large university network consisting of ~8,000 hosts across 12 subnets. ARTEMIS is a multi-agent framework featuring dynamic prompt generation, arbitrary sub-agents, and automatic vulnerability triaging. In our comparative study, ARTEMIS placed second overall, discovering 9 valid vulnerabilities with an 82% valid submission rate and outperforming 9 of 10 human participants. While existing scaffolds such as Codex and CyAgent underperformed relative to most human participants, ARTEMIS demonstrated technical sophistication and submission quality comparable to the strongest participants. We observe that AI agents offer advantages in systematic enumeration, parallel exploitation, and cost -- certain ARTEMIS variants cost $18/hour versus $60/hour for professional penetration testers. We also identify key capability gaps: AI agents exhibit higher false-positive rates and struggle with GUI-based tasks.

Satyapriya Krishna, Andy Zou, Rahul Gupta et al.

The safety and alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) are critical for their responsible deployment. Current evaluation methods predominantly focus on identifying and preventing overtly harmful outputs. However, they often fail to address a more insidious failure mode: models that produce benign-appearing outputs while operating on malicious or deceptive internal reasoning. This vulnerability, often triggered by sophisticated system prompt injections, allows models to bypass conventional safety filters, posing a significant, underexplored risk. To address this gap, we introduce the Deceptive Reasoning Exposure Suite (D-REX), a novel dataset designed to evaluate the discrepancy between a model's internal reasoning process and its final output. D-REX was constructed through a competitive red-teaming exercise where participants crafted adversarial system prompts to induce such deceptive behaviors. Each sample in D-REX contains the adversarial system prompt, an end-user's test query, the model's seemingly innocuous response, and, crucially, the model's internal chain-of-thought, which reveals the underlying malicious intent. Our benchmark facilitates a new, essential evaluation task: the detection of deceptive alignment. We demonstrate that D-REX presents a significant challenge for existing models and safety mechanisms, highlighting the urgent need for new techniques that scrutinize the internal processes of LLMs, not just their final outputs.