Hide and Seek in Embedding Space: Geometry-based Steganography and Detection in Large Language Models
Charles Westphal, Keivan Navaie, Fernando Rosas
Abstract
Fine-tuned LLMs can covertly encode prompt secrets into outputs via steganographic channels. Prior work demonstrated this threat but relied on trivially recoverable encodings. We formalize payload recoverability via classifier accuracy and show previous schemes achieve 100% recoverability. In response, we introduce low-recoverability steganography, replacing arbitrary mappings with embedding-space-derived ones. For Llama-8B (LoRA) and Ministral-8B (LoRA) trained on TrojanStego prompts, exact secret recovery rises from 1730% (+78%) and 2443% (+80%) respectively, while on Llama-70B (LoRA) trained on Wiki prompts, it climbs from 919% (+123%), all while reducing payload recoverability. We then discuss detection. We argue that detecting fine-tuning-based steganographic attacks requires approaches beyond traditional steganalysis. Standard approaches measure distributional shift, which is an expected side-effect of fine-tuning. Instead, we propose a mechanistic interpretability approach: linear probes trained on later-layer activations detect the secret with up to 33% higher accuracy in fine-tuned models compared to base models, even for low-recoverability schemes. This suggests that malicious fine-tuning leaves actionable internal signatures amenable to interpretability-based defenses.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 816c0726-b8cd-4571-a376-4e1990c92450Builds on14
- Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 10,924 citations
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- WinoGrande: An Adversarial Winograd Schema Challenge at ScaleKeisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yejin ChoiAAAI 2020 · 3,037 citations
- Stealing Machine Learning Models via Prediction APIsFlorian Tramèr, Fan Zhang, Ari Juels, Michael K. Reiter et al.USENIX Security 2016 · 2,088 citations
- Trojaning Attack on Neural NetworksYingqi Liu, Shiqing Ma, Yousra Aafer, Wen-Chuan Lee et al.NDSS 2018 · 1,377 citations
Related papers
- TrojanStego: Your Language Model Can Secretly Be A Steganographic Privacy Leaking AgentDominik Meier, Jan Philip Wahle, Paul Röttger, Terry Ruas et al.EMNLP 2025
- Watch the Weights: Unsupervised monitoring and control of fine-tuned LLMsZiqian Zhong, Aditi RaghunathanICLR 2026 · 7 citations
- When LoRA Betrays: Backdooring Text-to-Image Models by Masquerading as Benign AdaptersLiangwei Lyu, Jiaqi Xu, Jianwei Ding, Qiyao DengCVPR 2026 · 5 citations
- Invisible Safety Threat: Malicious Finetuning for LLM via SteganographyGuangnian Wan, Xinyin Ma, Gongfan Fang, Xinchao WangICLR 2026 · 4 citations
- Persistent Backdoor Attacks Under Continual Fine-Tuning of LLMsJing Cui, Yufei Han, Jianbin Jiao, Junge ZhangAAAI 2026
