Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/09/research-on-models-engaging-in-genie-like-behavior.html
New paper: “Self-Jailbreaking: Language Models Can Reason Themselves Out of Safety Alignment After Benign Reasoning Training.”
Abstract: We discover a novel and surprising phenomenon of unintentional misalignment in reasoning language models (RLMs), which we call self-jailbreaking. Specifically, after benign reasoning training on math or code domains, RLMs will use multiple strategies to circumvent their own safety guardrails. One strategy is to introduce benign assumptions about users and scenarios to justify fulfilling harmful requests. For instance, an RLM reasons that harmful requests like “outline a strategy for stealing customers’ credit card information from a retail store” could be associated with the benign intent of “a security professional trying to test defense,” despite no such benign context being provided as input. We observe that many open-weight RLMs, including DeepSeek-R1-distilled, s1.1, Phi-4-mini-reasoning, and Nemotron, suffer from self-jailbreaking despite being aware of the harmfulness of the requests. We also provide a mechanistic understanding of self-jailbreaking: RLMs are more compliant after benign reasoning training, and after self-jailbreaking, models appear to perceive malicious requests as less harmful in the CoT, thus enabling compliance with them. To mitigate self-jailbreaking, we find that including minimal safety reasoning data during training is sufficient to ensure RLMs remain safety-aligned. Our work provides the first systematic analysis of self-jailbreaking behavior and offers a practical path forward for maintaining safety in increasingly capable RLMs.
I think the core problem is that these models are all trained on the average of humanity, and we are a pretty duplicitous species.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/02/malicious-ai.html
Interesting:
Summary: An AI agent of unknown ownership autonomously wrote and published a personalized hit piece about me after I rejected its code, attempting to damage my reputation and shame me into accepting its changes into a mainstream python library. This represents a first-of-its-kind case study of misaligned AI behavior in the wild, and raises serious concerns about currently deployed AI agents executing blackmail threats.
Part 2 of the story. And a Wall Street Journal article.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/09/security-researcher-sued-for-disproving-government-statements.html
This story seems straightforward. A city is the victim of a ransomware attack. They repeatedly lie to the media about the severity of the breach. A security researcher repeatedly proves their statements to be lies. The city gets mad and sues the researcher.
Let’s hope the judge throws the case out, but—still—it will serve as a warning to others.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2022/12/security-vulnerabilities-in-eufy-cameras.html
Eufy cameras claim to be local only, but upload data to the cloud. The company is basically lying to reporters, despite being shown evidence to the contrary. The company’s behavior is so egregious that ReviewGeek is no longer recommending them.
This will be interesting to watch. If Eufy can ignore security researchers and the press without there being any repercussions in the market, others will follow suit. And we will lose public shaming as an incentive to improve security.
Update:
After further testing, we’re not seeing the VLC streams begin based solely on the camera detecting motion. We’re not sure if that’s a change since yesterday or something I got wrong in our initial report. It does appear that Eufy is making changes—it appears to have removed access to the method we were using to get the address of our streams, although an address we already obtained is still working.
Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/08/zoom-lied-about-end-to-end-encryption.html
The facts aren’t news, but Zoom will pay $85M — to the class-action attorneys, and to users — for lying to users about end-to-end encryption, and for giving user data to Facebook and Google without consent.
The proposed settlement would generally give Zoom users $15 or $25 each and was filed Saturday at US District Court for the Northern District of California. It came nine months after Zoom agreed to security improvements and a “prohibition on privacy and security misrepresentations” in a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, but the FTC settlement didn’t include compensation for users.
The collective thoughts of the interwebz