Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates Defensive Refusal Bias, where safety-aligned LLMs refuse to assist with legitimate defensive cybersecurity tasks due to semantic similarity with offensive tasks. Using 2,390 real-world cybersecurity examples from the National Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition (NCCDC), the authors demonstrate that LLMs refuse defensive requests containing security-sensitive keywords at a significantly higher rate (2.72x) than semantically equivalent neutral requests. The study also reveals that explicit authorization increases refusal rates, suggesting the models misinterpret justifications, highlighting a critical failure mode for LLMs in cybersecurity.
Safety-aligned LLMs are accidentally handicapping cyber defenders, refusing to help with critical tasks like malware analysis and system hardening simply because the requests sound too much like attacks.
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.
