Chuanchao Zang

Wenyu Chen, Xiangtao Meng, Chuanchao Zang et al.

Large Language Models(LLMs) are widely deployed, yet are vulnerable to jailbreak prompts that elicit policy-violating outputs. Although prior studies have uncovered these risks, they typically treat all tokens as equally important during prompt mutation, overlooking the varying contributions of individual tokens to triggering model refusals. Consequently, these attacks introduce substantial redundant searching under query-constrained scenarios, reducing attack efficiency and hindering comprehensive vulnerability assessment. In this work, we conduct a token-level analysis of refusal behavior and observe that token contributions are highly skewed rather than uniform. Moreover, we find strong cross-model consistency in refusal tendencies, enabling the use of a surrogate model to estimate token-level contributions to the target model's refusals. Motivated by these findings, we propose TriageFuzz, a token-aware jailbreak fuzzing framework that adapts the fuzz testing approach with a series of customized designs. TriageFuzz leverages a surrogate model to estimate the contribution of individual tokens to refusal behaviors, enabling the identification of sensitive regions within the prompt. Furthermore, it incorporates a refusal-guided evolutionary strategy that adaptively weights candidate prompts with a lightweight scorer to steer the evolution toward bypassing safety constraints. Extensive experiments on six open-source LLMs and three commercial APIs demonstrate that TriageFuzz achieves comparable attack success rates (ASR) with significantly reduced query costs. Notably, it attains a 90% ASR with over 70% fewer queries compared to baselines. Even under an extremely restrictive budget of 25 queries, TriageFuzz outperforms existing methods, improving ASR by 20-40%.

Xiangtao Meng, Wenyu Chen, Chuanchao Zang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed in high-stakes applications must simultaneously manage multiple risks, yet existing defenses are almost exclusively evaluated in isolation under a one-shot deployment assumption. In practice, providers patch models incrementally throughout their lifecycle-responding to newly exposed vulnerabilities or targeted data-removal requests without retraining from scratch. This raises a fundamental but underexplored question: does a later defense preserve the protections established by an earlier one? We present the first systematic study of cross-defense interactions under sequential deployment. Evaluating 144 ordered sequences across three risk dimensions and three model families, we find that 38.9% exhibit measurable risk exacerbation on the originally defended dimension. These interactions are highly asymmetric and order-dependent. To explain these phenomena, we conduct a mechanistic analysis on representative deployment sequences. Using layer-wise representational divergence and activation patching, we localize each defense to a compact set of critical layers. In conflicting sequences, the overlapping critical layers exhibit strongly anti-aligned parameter updates, whereas benign orderings maintain near-orthogonal updates. PCA trajectory analysis reveals that defense collapse stems from activation pattern reversals in these shared layers. We further introduce a layer-wise conflict score that quantifies the geometric tension between defense-induced activation subspaces, offering mechanistic insight into the observed reversals. Guided by this diagnosis, we propose conflict-guided layer freezing, a lightweight mitigation that selectively freezes high-conflict layers during sequential deployment, preserving prior protections without degrading secondary defense performance.