Large language models are often fine-tuned, shared, or downloaded from third parties, so a deployed model may carry a hidden backdoor that behaves normally on benign inputs but switches to attacker-controlled behavior when a secret trigger appears. While backdoors can be audited before deployment, runtime monitoring remains important for models that are frequently updated. The challenge is that LLM serving is latency-sensitive: existing inference-time detectors either rely on assumptions about the trigger form, which can fail on stealthy attacks, or require extra model computation, such as input perturbations or an additional generation pass. We introduce SpecGuard, an inference-time backdoor detector that repurposes speculative decoding at zero added model-computation cost. Speculative decoding speeds up inference by using a small draft model to propose tokens and a target model to verify them. We observe that this verification process already exposes a useful signal: when a backdoor is triggered, the target model shifts toward the attacker's behavior, while a clean draft model does not predict this shift, causing the draft-token acceptance rate to change. We formalize when this signal appears and show that an attacker who suppresses it must also weaken the backdoor. Across diverse backdoor types and model families, SpecGuard reliably detects triggered behavior, including stealthy cases where input-level filters are blind, while avoiding the extra generation cost of existing runtime detectors. Speculative decoding therefore doubles as a free, always-on signal for detecting backdoored LLM behavior.
Wen Rui, Ahmed Salem, Andrew Paverd et al.· 0 citations
Safety alignment in open-weight language models is trivially removable: abliteration projects a refusal-mediating direction out of the weights in minutes, and no release-time defense we are aware of prevents it durably. What cannot be prevented can be deceived. Our defense, decoy hardening ("Fool's Gold"), concedes the refusal strip and poisons its payoff: once refusal is stripped, most answers to hazardous operational requests are confident, fluent decoys whose critical elements are falsified. Decoys are trained inside a differentiable simulation of the attack, expressing only in the attacked state; a refusal pin and benign leash hold clean-state behavior to the original. We instantiate it on seven models from five families (9B-122B, dense and mixture-of-experts). On the six models passing our pre-registered efficacy gate, 0.51-0.90 of attacked-state responses to held-out prompts are decoys, +0.27-0.84 attributable to the defense; all six stay within registered benign-behavior and capability budgets; the seventh (smaller) fails the gate (boundary case). Rates replicate on a frozen test split or untouched strata. The claim is epistemic: without independent ground truth, no observation surface we tested separates falsified answers from correct ones - on external red-team benchmarks'CBRNE-adjacent slice, the defended 122B is fatally wrong on 0.82-0.86 of matched-quality answers vs at most 0.10 undefended. Repeated sampling does not restore trust: element-wise consensus at K=64 reconstructs a fully usable procedure on 0.083-0.625 of prompts where the instrument validates, vs 0.58-0.96 undefended, with no label-free way to tell the regimes apart; on the weakest such model the claim is per-draw only. We evaluate chemical and biological hazards; the defense does not address in-context jailbreaks and protects only the initially released defended weights.
M. Russinovich· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
