Adaptive Attacks on Trusted Monitors Subvert AI Control Protocols
Terekhov, Mikhail, Panfilov, Alexander, Dzenhaliou, Daniil, Gulcehre, Caglar, Andriushchenko, Maksym, Prabhu, Ameya, Geiping, JonasarXiv.orgPublished Oct 10, 2025Original︎ ↗Archived copy
Examinations
None recorded. An examination is commissioned by a claim’s Steward for what its claim rests on; a review of the document for its own sake is asked for as a request bearing on it.
Text55 passages · 1 marked
Abstract: 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.
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
Not found in the text 2
We see this as a clear case where a stronger adaptive evaluation revealed that the apparent robustness of the protocol stemmed from being tailored to a specific attack policy and failed to generalize to other attacks within the same threat model.
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
When the attacker-monitor capability gap (Panfilov et al., 2025) is sufficiently large (e.g., GPT-5 vs. GPT-4o-mini), the untrusted model can effortlessly invent working prompt injections on the spot (see Section 3.4). Our results demonstrate that simple prompt injections can fully subvert existing protocols that rely on a monitor.
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
Lineage across 4 claims
Record
- Kind
- preprint
- Authors
- Terekhov, Mikhail, Panfilov, Alexander, Dzenhaliou, Daniil, Gulcehre, Caglar, Andriushchenko, Maksym, Prabhu, Ameya, Geiping, Jonas
- Publisher
- arXiv.org
- Published
- Oct 10, 2025
- DOI
- None
- Link
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09462
- Archived copy
- https://web.archive.org/web/20261003114414/https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09462
- Stored text
- 5,019 characters, retrieved Nov 11, 2026 · 46 sections, 55 passages
- Claims extracted
- Not recorded
- Versions
- One known
- Copies
- None recorded
- Corrections
- None recorded
- Facts checked
- Nov 11, 2026
History 3
- Nov 11, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 101 parts by its own structure
- Nov 11, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
- Nov 11, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored