Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation (i.e., Code LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in AI-assisted software development and testing. However, recent studies have shown that these models are prone to generating vulnerable or even malicious code under adversarial settings. Existing red-teaming approaches rely on extensive human effort, limiting their scalability and practicality, and generally overlook the interactive nature of real-world AI-assisted programming, which often unfolds over multiple turns. To bridge these gaps, we present RedCoder, a red-teaming agent that engages victim models in multi-turn conversation to elicit vulnerable code. The pipeline to construct RedCoder begins with a multi-agent gaming process that simulates adversarial interactions, yielding a set of prototype conversations and an arsenal of reusable attack strategies. We then fine-tune an LLM on these prototype conversations to serve as the backbone of RedCoder. Once deployed, RedCoder autonomously engages Code LLMs in multi-turn conversations, dynamically retrieving relevant strategies from the arsenal to steer the dialogue toward vulnerability-inducing outputs. Experiments across multiple Code LLMs show that our approach outperforms prior single-turn and multi-turn red-team methods in inducing vulnerabilities in code generation, offering a scalable and effective tool for evaluating the security boundaries of modern code-generation systems.

Existing studies in backdoor defense have predominantly focused on the training phase, overlooking the critical aspect of testing time defense. This gap becomes pronounced in the context of Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed as Web Services, which typically offer only black-box access, rendering training-time defenses impractical. To bridge this gap, this study critically examines the use of demonstrations as a defense mechanism against backdoor attacks in black-box LLMs. With an identified task, we retrieve task-relevant demonstrations from a clean data pool and integrate them with user queries during testing. Importantly, this approach does not necessitate modifications or tuning of the model, nor does it require insight into the model’s internal architecture. The alignment properties inherent in in-context learning play a pivotal role in mitigating the impact of backdoor triggers, effectively recalibrating the behavior of compromised models. Our experimental analysis demonstrates that this method robustly defends against both instance-level and instruction-level backdoor attacks, outperforming existing defense baselines across most evaluation scenarios.

Ensuring the safety of large language models (LLMs) is critical as they are deployed in real-world applications. Existing guardrails rely on rule-based filtering or single-pass classification, limiting their ability to handle nuanced safety violations. To address this, we propose ThinkGuard, a critique-augmented guardrail model that distills knowledge from high-capacity LLMs by generating structured critiques alongside safety labels. Fine-tuned on critique-augmented data, the captured deliberative thinking ability drastically enhances the guardrail’s cautiousness and interpretability. Evaluated on multiple safety benchmarks, ThinkGuard achieves the highest average F1 and AUPRC, outperforming all baselines. Compared to LLaMA Guard 3, ThinkGuard improves accuracy by 16.1% and macro F1 by 27.0%. Moreover, it surpasses label-only fine-tuned models, confirming that structured critiques enhance both classification precision and nuanced safety reasoning while maintaining computational efficiency.

Backdoor attacks, in which a model behaves maliciously when given an attacker-specified trigger, pose a major security risk for practitioners who depend on publicly released language models. As a countermeasure, backdoor detection methods aim to detect whether a released model contains a backdoor. While existing backdoor detection methods have high accuracy in detecting backdoored models on standard benchmarks, it is unclear whether they can robustly identify backdoors in the wild. In this paper, we examine the robustness of backdoor detectors by manipulating different factors during backdoor planting. We find that the success of existing methods based on trigger inversion or meta classifiers highly depends on how intensely the model is trained on poisoned data. Specifically, backdoors planted with more aggressive or more conservative training are significantly more difficult to detect than the default ones. Our results highlight a lack of robustness of existing backdoor detectors and the limitations in current benchmark construction.