Nudge the Judge: Uncovering Program Decision Hijacking in Real-World Jev Applications
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
System One models such as Jev change how software makes decisions by mapping open-ended semantic contexts into structured judgments that directly drive program execution. However, this paradigm introduces a new security risk, which we term Jev Program Decision Hijacking (JPDH): attacker-controlled contexts can redirect program decisions through schema-valid Jev judgments. Existing evaluations focus primarily on model-level attacks or predefined injection channels, leaving attack reachability and downstream security consequences in real-world Jev applications underexplored. In this paper, we present JevProbe, the first automated framework to evaluate JPDH by tracing adversarial influence from reachable context surfaces through program-consumed decisions to downstream security consequences in real-world Jev applications. Our key insight is that application logic maps diverse Jev judgments to observable decisions, enabling systematic, program-grounded attack evaluation. Across 228 popular real-world Jev applications and 2,273 test cases, 81.5% exhibit decision flips, of which 98.6% lead to potential downstream security impacts. Compared with the strongest adapted baseline, JevProbe improves macro-average Decision Flip Rate (DFR) by 50.4 percentage points, while existing defenses offer limited protection. We further construct JevProbeBench to support systematic evaluation of JPDH in real-world Jev applications. We have responsibly disclosed our findings to Jev application maintainers, pending their responses. The source code of JevProbe and the JevProbeBench dataset are publicly available on GitHub (https://github.com/xiaoxiaohg8d/JevProbe-).
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2026.
Builds on
17 of 55 references.
References · 17
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
- 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIscited by 1,947
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402
- 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,195
- 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 832
- 2023Baseline Defenses for Adversarial Attacks Against Aligned Language Modelscited by 651
- 2023Language Agent Tree Search Unifies Reasoning Acting and Planning in Language Modelscited by 574
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandboxcited by 548
- 2024AndroidWorld: A Dynamic Benchmarking Environment for Autonomous Agentscited by 468
- 2024WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?cited by 363
- 2024ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilitiescited by 295
5 more
- 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlightingcited by 267
- 2025Flexible and Efficient Grammar-Constrained Decodingcited by 43
- 2024Cedar: A New Language for Expressive, Fast, Safe, and Analyzable Authorization (Extended Version)cited by 34
- 2025ChopChop: a Programmable Framework for Semantically Constraining the Output of Language Modelscited by 15
- 2026Context Contamination in LLM Analysis of Network Security Logs: Poison with Passive Prompt Injection and Mitigation Evaluationcited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.