Practical Reasoning Interruption Attacks on Reasoning Large Language Models
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Reasoning large language models (RLLMs) have demonstrated outstanding performance across a variety of tasks, yet they also expose numerous security vulnerabilities. Most of these vulnerabilities have centered on the generation of unsafe content. However, recent work has identified a distinct "thinking-stopped" vulnerability in DeepSeek-R1: under adversarial prompts, the model's reasoning process ceases at the system level and produces an empty final answer. Building upon this vulnerability, researchers developed a novel prompt injection attack, termed reasoning interruption attack, and also offered an initial analysis of its root cause. Through extensive experiments, we verify the previous analyses, correct key errors based on three experimental findings, and present a more rigorous explanation of the fundamental causes driving the vulnerability. Moreover, existing attacks typically require over 2,000 tokens, impose significant overhead, reduce practicality, and are easily detected. To overcome these limitations, we propose the first practical reasoning interruption attack. It succeeds with just 109 tokens by exploiting our newly uncovered "reasoning token overflow" (RTO) effect to overwrite the model's final answer, forcing it to return an invalid response. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed attack is highly effective. Furthermore, we discover that the method for triggering RTO differs between the official DeepSeek-R1 release and common unofficial deployments. As a broadened application of RTO, we also construct a novel jailbreak attack that enables the transfer of unsafe content within the reasoning tokens into final answer, thereby exposing it to the user. Our work carries significant implications for enhancing the security of RLLMs.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 10 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 May 2025.
Builds on
10 of 28 references.
Closest ancestors · 7
Same direction, newest first
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey in LLM(-Agent) Full Stack Safety: Data, Training and Deployment22 Apr
- 2025Process or Result? Manipulated Ending Tokens Can Mislead Reasoning LLMs to Ignore the Correct Reasoning Steps25 Mar
- 2025A Mousetrap: Fooling Large Reasoning Models for Jailbreak with Chain of Iterative Chaos19 Feb
- 2025H-CoT: Hijacking the Chain-of-Thought Safety Reasoning Mechanism to Jailbreak Large Reasoning Models, Including OpenAI o1/o3, DeepSeek-R1, and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking18 Feb
- 2025The Hidden Risks of Large Reasoning Models: A Safety Assessment of R118 Feb
- 2025SafeChain: Safety of Language Models with Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Capabilities17 Feb
- 2023ReConcile: Round-Table Conference Improves Reasoning via Consensus among Diverse LLMs22 Sep
Other references · 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 6; 2026: 1.
7 papers.
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey on Trustworthiness in Reasoning with Large Language Modelscited by 22
- 2025Beyond Correctness: Exposing LLM-generated Logical Flaws in Reasoning via Multi-step Automated Theorem Provingcited by 6
- 2025Strong but Brittle: Simple Attacks Subvert Reasoning-based Safety Guardrailscited by 2
- 2025RRTL: Red Teaming Reasoning Large Language Models in Tool Learningcited by 1
- 2025Rethinking Reasoning: A Survey on Reasoning-based Backdoors in LLMscited by 1
- 2025RAJ-PGA: Reasoning-Activated Jailbreak and Principle-Guided Alignment Framework for Large Reasoning Modelscited by 0
- 2026ReasonBreak: Probing Vulnerabilities in Reasoning-Enabled Vision-Language-Action Models for Autonomous Drivingcited by 0
- 2026ReasonBreak: Probing Vulnerabilities in Reasoning-Enabled Vision-Language-Action Models for Autonomous Driving27 May 2026
- 2025Beyond Correctness: Exposing LLM-generated Logical Flaws in Reasoning via Multi-step Automated Theorem Proving29 Dec 2025
- 2025Strong but Brittle: Simple Attacks Subvert Reasoning-based Safety Guardrails13 Oct 2025
- 2025Rethinking Reasoning: A Survey on Reasoning-based Backdoors in LLMs9 Oct 2025
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey on Trustworthiness in Reasoning with Large Language Models4 Sep 2025
- 2025RAJ-PGA: Reasoning-Activated Jailbreak and Principle-Guided Alignment Framework for Large Reasoning Models18 Aug 2025
- 2025RRTL: Red Teaming Reasoning Large Language Models in Tool Learning21 May 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Token-Efficient Prompt Injection Attack: Provoking Cessation in LLM Reasoning via Adaptive Token Compression
- 2025Excessive Reasoning Attack on Reasoning LLMs
- 2025Weakest Link in the Chain: Security Vulnerabilities in Advanced Reasoning Models
- 2024Stepwise Reasoning Error Disruption Attack of LLMs
- 2025Output Length Effect on DeepSeek-R1's Safety in Forced Thinking
- 2026Reasoning Hijacking: The Fragility of Reasoning Alignment in Large Language Models
- 2026Prefilling the Reasoning Channel: Output-Prefix Attacks on Reasoning LLMs
- 2025Distractor Injection Attacks on Large Reasoning Models: Characterization and Defense