mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Adaptive Attacks on Trusted Monitors Subvert AI Control Protocols

arXiv 2510.09462 ↗First posted 10 Oct 2025cs.LG cs.AI cs.CRcited by 30

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

AI control protocols serve as a defense mechanism to stop untrusted LLM agents from causing harm in autonomous settings. Prior work treats this as a security problem, stress testing with exploits that use the deployment context to subtly complete harmful side tasks, such as backdoor insertion. In practice, most AI control protocols are fundamentally based on LLM monitors, which can become a central point of failure. We study adaptive attacks by an untrusted model that knows the protocol and the monitor model, which is plausible if the untrusted model was trained with a later knowledge cutoff or can search for this information autonomously. We instantiate a simple adaptive attack vector by which the attacker embeds publicly known or zero-shot prompt injections in the model outputs. Using this tactic, frontier models consistently evade diverse monitors and complete malicious tasks on two main AI control benchmarks. The attack works universally against current protocols that rely on a monitor. Furthermore, the recent Defer-to-Resample protocol even backfires, as its resampling amplifies the prompt injection and effectively reframes it as a best-of-n attack. In general, adaptive attacks on monitor models represent a major blind spot in current control protocols and should become a standard component of evaluations for future AI control mechanisms.

Key facts. Cited by 30 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. First posted on arXiv 10 Oct 2025.

Builds on

0 of 0 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 28.

30 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025Agent Skills Enable a New Class of Realistic and Trivially Simple Prompt Injectionscited by 33
  2. 2026Analyzing and Improving Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Information Theorycited by 10
  3. 2026AI Agents May Always Fall for Prompt Injectionscited by 9
  4. 2026Attack Selection Reduces Safety in Concentrated AI Control Settings against Trusted Monitoringcited by 6
  5. 2026Training Agents to Self-Report Misbehaviorcited by 6
  6. 2026Ensemble Monitoring for AI Control: Diverse Signals Outweigh More Computecited by 6
  7. 2026MonitoringBench: Semi-Automated Red-Teaming for Agent Monitoringcited by 4
  8. 2026Basic Legibility Protocols Improve Trusted Monitoringcited by 3
  9. 2026CIAware-Bench: Benchmarking Control Intervention Awareness Across Frontier LLMscited by 3
  10. 2026Classifier Context Rot: Monitor Performance Degrades with Context Lengthcited by 2
  11. 2026ResearchArena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in Automated AI R&Dcited by 2
  12. 2026Reward Hacking Challenges Oversight of Autonomous Research Agentscited by 2
18 more
  1. 2026Bypassing AI Control Protocols via Agent-as-a-Proxy Attackscited by 1
  2. 2026Attack Selection in Agentic AI Control Evaluations Meaningfully Decreases Safetycited by 1
  3. 2026Probing the Misaligned Thinking Process of Language Modelscited by 1
  4. 2026Calibration-Family Overfit: Why Trusted Sabotage Monitors Don't Transfer Across Lineagescited by 1
  5. 2026More Rejective, Not More Discriminative: The Unit of Verification in Pre-Execution LLM Oversightcited by 1
  6. 2026Groundability, Not Scale Alone: When Weak Reviewers Can Audit Strong Coding Agentscited by 1
  7. 2025The Double Life of Code World Models: Provably Unmasking Malicious Behavior Through Execution Tracescited by 0
  8. 2026Honeypot Protocolcited by 0
  9. 2026Diffuse AI Control on Fuzzy Taskscited by 0
  10. 2026DrugBench: Evaluating AI Control Protocols for Medication Harm Mitigationcited by 0
  11. 2026Democratizing Agent Deployment Safety: A Structural Monitoring Approachcited by 0
  12. 2026Bounded Sovereignty and the Control Tax: Pricing AI Oversight When the Deployer Does Not Own the Modelcited by 0
  13. 2026Counter-Swarm Doctrine: Containing Coordinated Agent Intrusionscited by 0
  14. 2026The Wisdom of Artificial Deliberative Crowdscited by 0
  15. 2026When the Agent Becomes the Kernel: A Systematization of Security on the Path to AI-Native Operating Systemscited by 0
  16. 2026Instrumental Monitor Evasion Emerges Under Ordinary Task Pressurecited by 0
  17. 2026Towards a Unified Misuse Monitoring Benchmarkcited by 0
  18. 2026A Sense of Proprioception in Language Modelscited by 0

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Evaluating Control Protocols for Untrusted AI Agents
  2. 2026Adaptive Adversaries: A Multi-Turn, Multi-LLM Benchmark for LLM Agent Security
  3. 2026Adaptive Evaluation of Out-of-Band Defenses Against Prompt Injection in LLM Agents
  4. 2025Reliable Weak-to-Strong Monitoring of LLM Agents
  5. 2026Evaluation of Prompt Injection Defenses in Large Language Models
  6. 2026SLEIGHT-Bench: A Benchmark of Evasion Attacks Against Agent Monitors
  7. 2026SecOPD: Mitigating Adaptive Prompt Injections by On-Policy Distillation
  8. 2024Adaptive Deployment of Untrusted LLMs Reduces Distributed Threats