RAG enables LLMs to easily incorporate external data, raising concerns for data owners regarding unauthorized usage of their content. The challenge of detecting such unauthorized usage remains underexplored, with datasets and methods from adjacent fields being ill-suited for its study. We take several steps to bridge this gap. First, we formalize this problem as (black-box) RAG Dataset Inference (RAG-DI). We then introduce a novel dataset designed for realistic benchmarking of RAG-DI methods, alongside a set of baselines. Finally, we propose Ward, a method for RAG-DI based on LLM watermarks that equips data owners with rigorous statistical guarantees regarding their dataset's misuse in RAG corpora. Ward consistently outperforms all baselines, achieving higher accuracy, superior query efficiency and robustness. Our work provides a foundation for future studies of RAG-DI and highlights LLM watermarks as a promising approach to this problem.

Watermarking has emerged as a promising way to detect LLM-generated text, by augmenting LLM generations with later detectable signals. Recent work has proposed multiple families of watermarking schemes, several of which focus on preserving the LLM distribution. This distribution-preservation property is motivated by the fact that it is a tractable proxy for retaining LLM capabilities, as well as the inherently implied undetectability of the watermark by downstream users. Yet, despite much discourse around undetectability, no prior work has investigated the practical detectability of any of the current watermarking schemes in a realistic black-box setting. In this work we tackle this for the first time, developing rigorous statistical tests to detect the presence, and estimate parameters, of all three popular watermarking scheme families, using only a limited number of black-box queries. We experimentally confirm the effectiveness of our methods on a range of schemes and a diverse set of open-source models. Further, we validate the feasibility of our tests on real-world APIs. Our findings indicate that current watermarking schemes are more detectable than previously believed.

Recent privacy research on large language models (LLMs) has shown that they achieve near-human-level performance at inferring personal data from online texts. With ever-increasing model capabilities, existing text anonymization methods are currently lacking behind regulatory requirements and adversarial threats. In this work, we take two steps to bridge this gap: First, we present a new setting for evaluating anonymization in the face of adversarial LLM inferences, allowing for a natural measurement of anonymization performance while remedying some of the shortcomings of previous metrics. Then, within this setting, we develop a novel LLM-based adversarial anonymization framework leveraging the strong inferential capabilities of LLMs to inform our anonymization procedure. We conduct a comprehensive experimental evaluation of adversarial anonymization across 13 LLMs on real-world and synthetic online texts, comparing it against multiple baselines and industry-grade anonymizers. Our evaluation shows that adversarial anonymization outperforms current commercial anonymizers both in terms of the resulting utility and privacy. We support our findings with a human study (n=50) highlighting a strong and consistent human preference for LLM-anonymized texts.

With the increasing size of frontier LLMs, post-training quantization has become the standard for memory-efficient deployment. Recent work has shown that basic rounding-based quantization schemes pose security risks, as they can be exploited to inject malicious behaviors into quantized models that remain hidden in full precision. However, existing attacks cannot be applied to more complex quantization methods, such as the GGUF family used in the popular ollama and llama.cpp frameworks. In this work, we address this gap by introducing the first attack on GGUF. Our key insight is that the quantization error – the difference between the full-precision weights and their (de-)quantized version – provides sufficient flexibility to construct malicious quantized models that appear benign in full precision. Leveraging this, we develop an attack that trains the target malicious LLM while constraining its weights based on quantization errors. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our attack on three popular LLMs across nine GGUF quantization data types on three diverse attack scenarios: insecure code generation ($\Delta$=$88.7%$), targeted content injection ($\Delta$=$85.0%$), and benign instruction refusal ($\Delta$=$30.1%$). Our attack highlights that (1) the most widely used post-training quantization method is susceptible to adversarial interferences, and (2) the complexity of quantization schemes alone is insufficient as a defense.

LLM watermarks stand out as a promising way to attribute ownership of LLM-generated text. One threat to watermark credibility comes from spoofing attacks, where an unauthorized third party forges the watermark, enabling it to falsely attribute arbitrary texts to a particular LLM. Despite recent work demonstrating that state-of-the-art schemes are, in fact, vulnerable to spoofing, no prior work has focused on post-hoc methods to discover spoofing attempts. In this work, we for the first time propose a reliable statistical method to distinguish spoofed from genuinely watermarked text, suggesting that current spoofing attacks are less effective than previously thought. In particular, we show that regardless of their underlying approach, all current learning-based spoofing methods consistently leave observable artifacts in spoofed texts, indicative of watermark forgery. We build upon these findings to propose rigorous statistical tests that reliably reveal the presence of such artifacts and thus demonstrate that a watermark has been spoofed. Our experimental evaluation shows high test power across all learning-based spoofing methods, providing insights into their fundamental limitations and suggesting a way to mitigate this threat.

Despite recent efforts in Large Language Model (LLM) safety and alignment, current adversarial attacks on frontier LLMs can still consistently force harmful generations. Although adversarial training has been widely studied and shown to significantly improve the robustness of traditional machine learning models, its strengths and weaknesses in the context of LLMs are less understood. Specifically, while existing discrete adversarial attacks are effective at producing harmful content, training LLMs with concrete adversarial prompts is often computationally expensive, leading to reliance on continuous relaxations. At the same time, despite their effectiveness and generalization capabilities, training with continuous perturbations does not always capture the full spectrum of vulnerabilities exploited by discrete attacks. In this work, we aim to bridge this gap by introducing MIXAT, a novel method that combines stronger discrete and faster continuous attacks during training. We rigorously evaluate MIXAT across a wide spectrum of state-of-the-art attacks, proposing the *At Least One Attack Success Rate* (ALO-ASR) metric to capture the worst-case vulnerability of models. We show MIXAT achieves substantially better robustness (ALO-ASR $< 20\%$) compared to prior defenses (ALO-ASR $> 50\%$), while maintaining a runtime comparable to methods based on continuous relaxations. We further analyze MIXAT in realistic deployment settings, exploring how chat templates, quantization, low-rank adapters, and temperature affect both adversarial training and evaluation, revealing additional blind spots in current methodologies. Our results demonstrate that MIXAT discrete-continuous defense offers a principled and superior robustness-accuracy tradeoff with minimal computational overhead, highlighting its promise for building safer LLMs. We provide our code and models at https://github.com/insait-institute/MixAT.

Current privacy research on large language models (LLMs) primarily focuses on the issue of extracting memorized training data. At the same time, models’ inference capabilities have increased drastically. This raises the key question of whether current LLMs could violate individuals’ privacy by inferring personal attributes from text given at inference time. In this work, we present the first comprehensive study on the capabilities of pretrained LLMs to infer personal attributes from text. We construct a dataset consisting of real Reddit profiles, and show that current LLMs can infer a wide range of personal attributes (e.g., location, income, sex), achieving up to 85% top-1 and 95% top-3 accuracy at a fraction of the cost (100x) and time (240x) required by humans. As people increasingly interact with LLM-powered chatbots across all aspects of life, we also explore the emerging threat of privacy-invasive chatbots trying to extract personal information through seemingly benign questions. Finally, we show that common mitigations, i.e., text anonymization and model alignment, are currently ineffective at protecting user privacy against LLM inference. Our findings highlight that current LLMs can infer personal data at a previously unattainable scale. In the absence of working defenses, we advocate for a broader discussion around LLM privacy implications beyond memorization, striving for stronger and wider privacy protection.

LLM watermarking has attracted attention as a promising way to detect AI-generated content, with some works suggesting that current schemes may already be fit for deployment. In this work we dispute this claim, identifying *watermark stealing* (WS) as a fundamental vulnerability of these schemes. We show that querying the API of the watermarked LLM to approximately reverse-engineer a watermark enables practical *spoofing attacks*, as hypothesized in prior work, but also greatly boosts *scrubbing* attacks, which was previously unnoticed. We are the first to propose an automated WS algorithm and use it in the first comprehensive study of spoofing and scrubbing in realistic settings. We show that for under $50 an attacker can both spoof and scrub state-of-the-art schemes previously considered safe, with average success rate of over 80\%. Our findings challenge common beliefs about LLM watermarking, stressing the need for more robust schemes. We make all our code and additional examples available at https://watermark-stealing.org.

Quantization leverages lower-precision weights to reduce the memory usage of large language models (LLMs) and is a key technique for enabling their deployment on commodity hardware. While LLM quantization's impact on utility has been extensively explored, this work for the first time studies its adverse effects from a security perspective. We reveal that widely used quantization methods can be exploited to produce a harmful quantized LLM, even though the full-precision counterpart appears benign, potentially tricking users into deploying the malicious quantized model. We demonstrate this threat using a three-staged attack framework: (i) first, we obtain a malicious LLM through fine-tuning on an adversarial task; (ii) next, we quantize the malicious model and calculate constraints that characterize all full-precision models that map to the same quantized model; (iii) finally, using projected gradient descent, we tune out the poisoned behavior from the full-precision model while ensuring that its weights satisfy the constraints computed in step (ii). This procedure results in an LLM that exhibits benign behavior in full precision but when quantized, it follows the adversarial behavior injected in step (i). We experimentally demonstrate the feasibility and severity of such an attack across three diverse scenarios: vulnerable code generation, content injection, and over-refusal attack. In practice, the adversary could host the resulting full-precision model on an LLM community hub such as Hugging Face, exposing millions of users to the threat of deploying its malicious quantized version on their devices.

As large language models (LLMs) become ubiquitous in our daily tasks and digital interactions, associated privacy risks are increasingly in focus. While LLM privacy research has primarily focused on the leakage of model training data, it has recently been shown that LLMs can make accurate privacy-infringing inferences from previously unseen texts. With the rise of vision-language models (VLMs), capable of understanding both images and text, a key question is whether this concern transfers to the previously unexplored domain of benign images posted online. To answer this question, we compile an image dataset with human-annotated labels of the image owner's personal attributes. In order to understand the privacy risks posed by VLMs beyond traditional human attribute recognition, our dataset consists of images where the inferable private attributes do not stem from direct depictions of humans. On this dataset, we evaluate 7 state-of-the-art VLMs, finding that they can infer various personal attributes at up to 77.6% accuracy. Concerningly, we observe that accuracy scales with the general capabilities of the models, implying that future models can be misused as stronger inferential adversaries, establishing an imperative for the development of adequate defenses.

Recently powerful Large Language Models (LLMs) have become easily accessible to hundreds of millions of users world-wide. However, their strong capabilities and vast world knowledge do not come without associated privacy risks. In this work, we focus on the emerging privacy threat LLMs pose – the ability to accurately infer personal information from online texts. Despite the growing importance of LLM-based author profiling, research in this area has been hampered by a lack of suitable public datasets, largely due to ethical and privacy concerns associated with real personal data. We take two steps to address this problem: (i) we construct a simulation framework for the popular social media platform Reddit using LLM agents seeded with synthetic personal profiles; (ii) using this framework, we generate SynthPAI, a diverse synthetic dataset of over 7800 comments manually labeled for personal attributes. We validate our dataset with a human study showing that humans barely outperform random guessing on the task of distinguishing our synthetic comments from real ones. Further, we verify that our dataset enables meaningful personal attribute inference research by showing across 18 state-of-the-art LLMs that our synthetic comments allow us to draw the same conclusions as real-world data. Combined, our experimental results, dataset and pipeline form a strong basis for future privacy-preserving research geared towards understanding and mitigating inference-based privacy threats that LLMs pose.

Aiming to train and deploy predictive models, organizations collect large amounts of detailed client data, risking the exposure of private information in the event of a breach. To mitigate this, policymakers increasingly demand compliance with the data minimization (DM) principle, restricting data collection to only that data which is relevant and necessary for the task. Despite regulatory pressure, the problem of deploying machine learning models that obey DM has so far received little attention. In this work, we address this challenge in a comprehensive manner. We propose a novel vertical DM (vDM) workflow based on data generalization, which by design ensures that no full-resolution client data is collected during training and deployment of models, benefiting client privacy by reducing the attack surface in case of a breach. We formalize and study the corresponding problem of finding generalizations that both maximize data utility and minimize empirical privacy risk, which we quantify by introducing a diverse set of policy-aligned adversarial scenarios. Finally, we propose a range of baseline vDM algorithms, as well as Privacy-aware Tree (PAT), an especially effective vDM algorithm that outperforms all baselines across several settings. We plan to release our code as a publicly available library, helping advance the standardization of DM for machine learning. Overall, we believe our work can help lay the foundation for further exploration and adoption of DM principles in real-world applications.

We present a new abstract interpretation framework for the precise over-approximation of numerical fixpoint iterators. Our key observation is that unlike in standard abstract interpretation (AI), typically used to over-approximate all reachable program states, in this setting, one only needs to abstract the concrete fixpoints, i.e., the final program states. Our framework targets numerical fixpoint iterators with convergence and uniqueness guarantees in the concrete and is based on two major technical contributions: (i) theoretical insights which allow us to compute sound and precise fixpoint abstractions without using joins, and (ii) a new abstract domain, CH-Zonotope, which admits efficient propagation and inclusion checks while retaining high precision. We implement our framework in a tool called CRAFT and evaluate it on a novel fixpoint-based neural network architecture (monDEQ) that is particularly challenging to verify. Our extensive evaluation demonstrates that CRAFT exceeds the state-of-the-art performance in terms of speed (two orders of magnitude), scalability (one order of magnitude), and precision (25% higher certified accuracies).