No, of Course I Can! Deeper Fine-Tuning Attacks That Bypass Token-Level Safety Mechanisms
On the map: LLM safety and security → Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails
Abstract (arXiv)
Leading language model (LM) providers like OpenAI and Anthropic allow customers to fine-tune frontier LMs for specific use cases. To prevent abuse, these providers apply filters to block fine-tuning on overtly harmful data. In this setting, we make three contributions: First, while past work has shown that safety alignment is "shallow", we correspondingly demonstrate that existing fine-tuning attacks are shallow -- attacks target only the first several tokens of the model response, and consequently can be blocked by generating the first several response tokens with an aligned model. Second, we conceptually illustrate how to make attacks deeper by introducing a new fine-tuning attack that trains models to first refuse harmful requests before answering them; this "refuse-then-comply" strategy bypasses shallow defenses and produces harmful responses that evade output filters. Third, we demonstrate the potency of our new fine-tuning attack by jailbreaking both open-source models equipped with defenses and production models, achieving attack success rates of 57% and 72% against GPT-4o and Claude Haiku, respectively. Our attack received a 2000 bug bounty from OpenAI and was acknowledged as a vulnerability by Anthropic. Our work undermines the notion that models are safe because they initially refuse harmful requests and broadens awareness of the scope of attacks that face production fine-tuning APIs.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 67 of its 100 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Feb 2025.
Builds on
67 of 100 references.
Closest ancestors · 16
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Virus: Harmful Fine-tuning Attack for Large Language Models Bypassing Guardrail Moderation29 Jan
- 2024Separate the Wheat from the Chaff: A Post-Hoc Approach to Safety Re-Alignment for Fine-Tuned Language Models15 Dec
- 2024Towards Understanding the Fragility of Multilingual LLMs against Fine-Tuning Attacks23 Oct
- 2024Targeted Vaccine: Safety Alignment for Large Language Models against Harmful Fine-Tuning via Layer-wise Perturbation13 Oct
- 2024Harmful Fine-tuning Attacks and Defenses for Large Language Models: A Survey26 Sep
- 2024Antidote: Post-fine-tuning Safety Alignment for Large Language Models against Harmful Fine-tuning18 Aug
- 2024Do as I do (Safely): Mitigating Task-Specific Fine-tuning Risks in Large Language Models12 Jun
- 2024Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deep10 Jun
- 2024Lisa: Lazy Safety Alignment for Large Language Models against Harmful Fine-tuning Attack28 May
- 2024Navigating the Safety Landscape: Measuring Risks in Finetuning Large Language Models27 May
- 2024Robustifying Safety-Aligned Large Language Models through Clean Data Curation24 May
- 2024A safety realignment framework via subspace-oriented model fusion for large language models15 May
4 more
- 2024Assessing the Brittleness of Safety Alignment via Pruning and Low-Rank Modifications7 Feb
- 2024Building Guardrails for Large Language Models2 Feb
- 2023LoRA Fine-tuning Efficiently Undoes Safety Training in Llama 2-Chat 70B31 Oct
- 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!5 Oct
Other references · 51
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
- 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,651
- 2020RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Modelscited by 1,255
- 2017Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Timecited by 689
- 2023Instruction Tuning with GPT-4cited by 686
- 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingcited by 529
- 2024Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attackscited by 486
- 2023Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructionscited by 387
- 2023Are aligned neural networks adversarially aligned?cited by 315
38 more
- 2017Certified Defenses for Data Poisoning Attackscited by 303
- 2023Shadow Alignment: The Ease of Subverting Safely-Aligned Language Modelscited by 297
- 2023Poisoning Web-Scale Training Datasets is Practicalcited by 290
- 2023Poisoning Language Models During Instruction Tuningcited by 269
- 2024ShieldGemma: Generative AI Content Moderation Based on Gemmacited by 243
- 2023Removing RLHF Protections in GPT-4 via Fine-Tuningcited by 171
- 2021Challenges in Detoxifying Language Modelscited by 169
- 2024Safety Fine-Tuning at (Almost) No Cost: A Baseline for Vision Large Language Modelscited by 167
- 2024Tamper-Resistant Safeguards for Open-Weight LLMscited by 138
- 2024Safety Layers in Aligned Large Language Models: The Key to LLM Securitycited by 134
- 2024Safe LoRA: the Silver Lining of Reducing Safety Risks when Fine-tuning Large Language Modelscited by 125
- 2020Just How Toxic is Data Poisoning? A Unified Benchmark for Backdoor and Data Poisoning Attackscited by 116
- 2023On the Exploitability of Instruction Tuningcited by 116
- 2024Vaccine: Perturbation-aware Alignment for Large Language Models against Harmful Fine-tuning Attackcited by 115
- 2022Truth Serum: Poisoning Machine Learning Models to Reveal Their Secretscited by 101
- 2023Fine-tuning can cripple your foundation model; preserving features may be the solutioncited by 96
- 2024Keeping LLMs Aligned After Fine-tuning: The Crucial Role of Prompt Templatescited by 96
- 2018Is feature selection secure against training data poisoning?cited by 93
- 2024Booster: Tackling Harmful Fine-tuning for Large Language Models via Attenuating Harmful Perturbationcited by 92
- 2024Defending Against Unforeseen Failure Modes with Latent Adversarial Trainingcited by 88
- 2016Data Poisoning Attacks on Factorization-Based Collaborative Filteringcited by 83
- 2024Covert Malicious Finetuning: Challenges in Safeguarding LLM Adaptationcited by 80
- 2024SEAL: Safety-enhanced Aligned LLM Fine-tuning via Bilevel Data Selectioncited by 64
- 2024On Evaluating the Durability of Safeguards for Open-Weight LLMscited by 52
- 2024Shadowcast: Stealthy Data Poisoning Attacks Against Vision-Language Modelscited by 50
- 2024NLSR: Neuron-Level Safety Realignment of Large Language Models Against Harmful Fine-Tuningcited by 37
- 2024Best-of-Venom: Attacking RLHF by Injecting Poisoned Preference Datacited by 35
- 2024Safety-Aware Fine-Tuning of Large Language Modelscited by 34
- 2024PoisonBench: Assessing Large Language Model Vulnerability to Data Poisoningcited by 33
- 2024Mitigating Fine-tuning based Jailbreak Attack with Backdoor Enhanced Safety Alignmentcited by 31
- 2022Not All Poisons are Created Equal: Robust Training against Data Poisoningcited by 30
- 2024Locking Down the Finetuned LLMs Safetycited by 22
- 2018Is Data Clustering in Adversarial Settings Secure?cited by 18
- 2024The effect of fine-tuning on language model toxicitycited by 16
- 2023Temporal Robustness against Data Poisoningcited by 10
- 2025Fundamental Limitations in Pointwise Defences of LLM Finetuning APIscited by 10
- 2024Jailbreak Defense in a Narrow Domain: Limitations of Existing Methods and a New Transcript-Classifier Approachcited by 6
- 2023Transferable Availability Poisoning Attackscited by 5
50 most cited of 51 All 51 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 2.
6 papers.
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey in LLM(-Agent) Full Stack Safety: Data, Training and Deploymentcited by 116
- 2025SAFEx: Analyzing Vulnerabilities of MoE-Based LLMs via Stable Safety-critical Expert Identificationcited by 18
- 2025Safety Subspaces are Not Linearly Distinct: A Fine-Tuning Case Studycited by 6
- 2026Surgery: Mitigating Harmful Fine-Tuning for Large Language Models via Attention Sinkcited by 4
- 2025Fine-Tuning Jailbreaks under Highly Constrained Black-Box Settings: A Three-Pronged Approachcited by 2
- 2026LLM Alignment--Utility Asymmetry under Semantic-Preserving Transformationscited by 0
- 2026LLM Alignment--Utility Asymmetry under Semantic-Preserving Transformations26 Sep 2026
- 2026Surgery: Mitigating Harmful Fine-Tuning for Large Language Models via Attention Sink5 Feb 2026
- 2025Fine-Tuning Jailbreaks under Highly Constrained Black-Box Settings: A Three-Pronged Approach1 Oct 2025
- 2025SAFEx: Analyzing Vulnerabilities of MoE-Based LLMs via Stable Safety-critical Expert Identification20 Jun 2025
- 2025Safety Subspaces are Not Linearly Distinct: A Fine-Tuning Case Study20 May 2025
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey in LLM(-Agent) Full Stack Safety: Data, Training and Deployment22 Apr 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Few Tokens, Big Leverage: Preserving Safety Alignment by Constraining Safety Tokens during Fine-tuning
- 2025Matching Ranks Over Probability Yields Truly Deep Safety Alignment
- 2026Gradient Immunity: Null-Space Resistance to Malicious Fine-Tuning
- 2025Attack via Overfitting: 10-shot Benign Fine-tuning to Jailbreak LLMs
- 2026Open-Weight LLM Fine-Tuning Defenses are Susceptible to Simple Attacks
- 2025Fine-Tuning Lowers Safety and Disrupts Evaluation Consistency
- 2025Panacea: Mitigating Harmful Fine-tuning for Large Language Models via Post-fine-tuning Perturbation
- 2024No Two Devils Alike: Unveiling Distinct Mechanisms of Fine-tuning Attacks