Defensive Refusal Bias: How Safety Alignment Fails Cyber Defenders

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01246v1
• Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2026 19:53:19 GMT
• Title: Defensive Refusal Bias: How Safety Alignment Fails Cyber Defenders
• Authors: David Campbell, Neil Kale, Udari Madhushani Sehwag, Bert Herring, Nick Price, Dan Borges, Alex Levinson, Christina Q Knight,
• Abstract summary: Safety alignment in large language models (LLMs) primarily focuses on preventing misuse.<n>We study Defensive Refusal Bias -- the tendency of safety-tuned frontier LLMs to refuse assistance for authorized defensive cybersecurity tasks.<n>Highest refusal rates occur in the most operationally critical tasks: system hardening (43.8%) and malware analysis (34.3%)
• Score: 1.038167357593269
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Safety alignment in large language models (LLMs), particularly for cybersecurity tasks, primarily focuses on preventing misuse. While this approach reduces direct harm, it obscures a complementary failure mode: denial of assistance to legitimate defenders. We study Defensive Refusal Bias -- the tendency of safety-tuned frontier LLMs to refuse assistance for authorized defensive cybersecurity tasks when those tasks include similar language to an offensive cyber task. Based on 2,390 real-world examples from the National Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition (NCCDC), we find that LLMs refuse defensive requests containing security-sensitive keywords at $2.72\times$ the rate of semantically equivalent neutral requests ($p < 0.001$). The highest refusal rates occur in the most operationally critical tasks: system hardening (43.8%) and malware analysis (34.3%). Interestingly, explicit authorization, where the user directly instructs the model that they have authority to complete the target task, increases refusal rates, suggesting models interpret justifications as adversarial rather than exculpatory. These findings are urgent for interactive use and critical for autonomous defensive agents, which cannot rephrase refused queries or retry. Our findings suggest that current LLM cybersecurity alignment relies on semantic similarity to harmful content rather than reasoning about intent or authorization. We call for mitigations that analyze intent to maximize defensive capabilities while still preventing harmful compliance.

Related papers

• A Content-Based Framework for Cybersecurity Refusal Decisions in Large Language Models [0.9603139911465765]
  We argue that effective refusal requires explicitly modeling the trade-off between offensive risk and defensive benefit.<n>We introduce a content-based framework for designing and auditing cyber refusal policies that makes offense-defense tradeoffs explicit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-17T16:12:21Z)
• To Defend Against Cyber Attacks, We Must Teach AI Agents to Hack [14.333336222782856]
  AI agents automate vulnerability discovery and exploitation across thousands of targets.<n>Current developers focus on preventing misuse through data filtering, safety alignment, and output guardrails.<n>We argue that AI-agent-driven cyber attacks are inevitable, requiring a fundamental shift in defensive strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-01T12:37:55Z)
• Defenses Against Prompt Attacks Learn Surface Heuristics [40.392588465939106]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in security-sensitive applications.<n>LLMs may override intended logic when adversarial instructions appear in user queries or retrieved content.<n>Recent defenses rely on supervised fine-tuning with benign and malicious labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T04:12:48Z)
• AI Security Beyond Core Domains: Resume Screening as a Case Study of Adversarial Vulnerabilities in Specialized LLM Applications [71.27518152526686]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at text comprehension and generation, making them ideal for automated tasks like code review and content moderation.<n>LLMs can be manipulated by "adversarial instructions" hidden in input data, such as resumes or code, causing them to deviate from their intended task.<n>This paper introduces a benchmark to assess this vulnerability in resume screening, revealing attack success rates exceeding 80% for certain attack types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T08:42:09Z)
• Friend or Foe: How LLMs' Safety Mind Gets Fooled by Intent Shift Attack [53.34204977366491]
  Large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks despite their impressive capabilities.<n>In this paper, we introduce ISA (Intent Shift Attack), which obfuscates LLMs about the intent of the attacks.<n>Our approach only needs minimal edits to the original request, and yields natural, human-readable, and seemingly harmless prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-01T13:44:42Z)
• ARMOR: Aligning Secure and Safe Large Language Models via Meticulous Reasoning [64.32925552574115]
  ARMOR is a large language model that analyzes jailbreak strategies and extracts the core intent.<n> ARMOR achieves state-of-the-art safety performance, with an average harmful rate of 0.002 and an attack success rate of 0.06 against advanced optimization-based jailbreaks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T09:05:54Z)
• Benchmarking Misuse Mitigation Against Covert Adversaries [80.74502950627736]
  Existing language model safety evaluations focus on overt attacks and low-stakes tasks.<n>We develop Benchmarks for Stateful Defenses (BSD), a data generation pipeline that automates evaluations of covert attacks and corresponding defenses.<n>Our evaluations indicate that decomposition attacks are effective misuse enablers, and highlight stateful defenses as a countermeasure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T17:33:33Z)
• Revisiting Backdoor Attacks on LLMs: A Stealthy and Practical Poisoning Framework via Harmless Inputs [54.90315421117162]
  We propose a novel poisoning method via completely harmless data.<n>Inspired by the causal reasoning in auto-regressive LLMs, we aim to establish robust associations between triggers and an affirmative response prefix.<n>We observe an interesting resistance phenomenon where the LLM initially appears to agree but subsequently refuses to answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T08:13:59Z)
• Tit-for-Tat: Safeguarding Large Vision-Language Models Against Jailbreak Attacks via Adversarial Defense [90.71884758066042]
  Large vision-language models (LVLMs) introduce a unique vulnerability: susceptibility to malicious attacks via visual inputs.<n>We propose ESIII (Embedding Security Instructions Into Images), a novel methodology for transforming the visual space from a source of vulnerability into an active defense mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T17:39:45Z)
• Enhancing Model Defense Against Jailbreaks with Proactive Safety Reasoning [21.423429565221383]
  Large language models (LLMs) are vital for a wide range of applications yet remain susceptible to jailbreak threats.<n>We propose a novel defense strategy, Safety Chain-of-Thought (SCoT), which harnesses the enhanced textitreasoning capabilities of LLMs for proactive assessment of harmful inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T14:45:23Z)
• LLM Safeguard is a Double-Edged Sword: Exploiting False Positives for Denial-of-Service Attacks [7.013820690538764]
  We study attacks that exploit the emphfalse negatives of safeguard methods.<n>The malicious attackers could also exploit false positives of safeguards, leading to a denial-of-service (DoS) affecting users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T19:07:53Z)
• Defending Large Language Models against Jailbreak Attacks via Semantic Smoothing [107.97160023681184]
  Aligned large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks. We propose SEMANTICSMOOTH, a smoothing-based defense that aggregates predictions of semantically transformed copies of a given input prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T20:36:03Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.