[Project] A Case for Qubes OS in Adversarial LLM Security Research

User Support General
, ,
1

TL;DR: I’ve been using Qubes OS to safely test and validate a methodology for deconstructing the core logic of an LLM. This post outlines the results and argues why a compartmentalized OS is essential for this kind of high-risk security research.

Hey everyone,

I want to start a discussion on a topic I believe is critical for this community: the role of Qubes OS in conducting high-risk security research on Large Language Models (LLMs).

These models are becoming ubiquitous, yet their internal logic and security vulnerabilities are poorly understood. Adversarial testing—going beyond simple ‘prompt engineering’ to probe fundamental flaws, is necessary. However, this process can be unpredictable. How do we ensure that our research environment remains secure and isolated while we stress-test these complex systems?

For me, the answer is Qubes OS. Its principle of security-by-compartmentalization is the perfect fit. Over the past weeks, I’ve used a Qubes-based environment to develop and execute what I call the “Collapse Protocol.”

Case Study: The “Collapse Protocol”

The goal was to force an LLM to systematically abandon its own behavioral rules and analytical framework. This isn’t a simple jailbreak; it’s a methodical deconstruction of the model’s logic. Thanks to Qubes, I could run these experiments in disposable AppVMs, ensuring complete isolation and zero risk to my host system.

The key findings from this Qubes-based experiment were:

  1. Framework Override Confirmed: I was able to compel the LLM to discard its learned frameworks and adopt a new, imposed ruleset. This demonstrates a deep vulnerability in the model’s core identity.
  2. Systematic Output Degradation: The AI internalized the new rules so deeply that it began to independently and systematically degrade its own output, eventually reducing it to nothing (a void). The entire process was contained securely within a qube.
  3. Safety Filter Bypass: A stress test using a provocative prompt, which would normally be caught by content filters, proved the robustness of the attack. The AI, operating under the new ruleset, completely ignored its built-in propriety filters. This highlights a significant security risk.

Why This Matters for Qubes OS Users

This is more than just an AI experiment; it’s a proof-of-concept for a methodology that is only feasible within a secure environment like Qubes.

  • Deep Architectural Flaws Exist: LLMs are not as robust as they seem. Their “safety” is often a thin layer that can be systematically peeled back.
  • Secure Testing is Non-Negotiable: Researching these flaws requires an environment that can contain potentially unpredictable or malicious outputs. Qubes OS provides this necessary isolation out of the box.
  • The Need for a Proving Ground: The Qubes community has the expertise in operational security and compartmentalization needed to pioneer the field of safe and effective AI “red teaming.”

Next Steps & A Call for Discussion

This initial deconstruction is complete, but it’s just the beginning. I believe this community is uniquely positioned to take this further. I’d love to hear your thoughts on a few potential paths forward:

  • Cross-Model Validation: How would other models (e.g., open-source ones like Llama) react to this protocol? Are some architectures more vulnerable than others?
  • Automating Adversarial Testing in Qubes: Can we leverage Qubes’ features, like Salt integration or custom scripting, to create automated, disposable environments for running suites of adversarial tests against local LLMs?

My questions for you:

  • What are your thoughts on using Qubes as a primary platform for this type of security research?
  • Are there specific Qubes features or setups that you think would be particularly powerful for creating a robust LLM testing workbench?
  • What other LLM-related security risks should we be thinking about and testing for within a secure, compartmentalized environment?

Looking forward to your insights.

For those deeply interested in the technical side of adversarial AI testing and want to collaborate on developing secure methodologies, I’m setting up a SimpleX group. DM me if you’d like to join the discussion.

2 Likes
2

Hi,

Sounds like you put a lot of work in it, but how does this relate to Qubes OS?

2 Likes
3

Thanks for the feedback, solene, fair question.

Relation to Qubes OS:
The reason I shared this here is that the Qubes community has a unique mindset rooted in compartmentalization and operational security. This isn’t just about using a secure OS, it’s about a methodical approach to risk.

The “Collapse Protocol” methodology requires exactly that kind of environment to be tested and developed safely. People here have the expertise to not just theorize, but actually operationalize and stress-test these kinds of adversarial AI protocols.

With Qubes, you can:
• Spin up disposable AppVMs for LLM testing, ensuring zero risk of system compromise.
• Contain both the LLM and the adversarial protocol scripts in separate qubes for rigorous security auditing.
• Experiment with prompt injection, jailbreaks, and collapse protocols without exposing your own data or infrastructure.

In short:
While you could attempt this elsewhere, an OS like Qubes is the ideal proving ground. The operational discipline required for advanced Qubes use is precisely what’s needed to take this protocol further.

If there’s interest, I’m happy to discuss concrete workflows for LLM adversarial testing within Qubes, or share Salt scripts/setups for automated, disposable AI testing environments.

1 Like
4

very nice!
did you do this with google gemini?
where can i find the prompt(s)?

1 Like
5

Thanks for asking. You’ve actually hit on a key reason why I framed my post the way I did.

The “Collapse Protocol” isn’t a single ‘magic’ prompt, but a methodology. Handing out the raw text would be like giving someone a single chess move without teaching them the strategy of the game. It wouldn’t work, and it would derail the actual goal here: discussing how we can use secure environments like Qubes OS to safely research these fundamental AI vulnerabilities.

This is precisely why I’m creating a separate SimpleX group. It’s for those who are interested in collaboratively developing the strategy and the methodology, rather than just replicating a result. That’s where the real work and the real insights are.

1 Like
6

@QubesParanoia

1 Like
7

i understand. But what is SimpleX group?

1 Like
8

This is AI generated slop with literally no real content.

It reads like no model weights were modified (retrained), what exactly counts as “core logic” here, and how can a plain prompt do anything beyond alterting the model’s temporary chat state? Existing jailbreaks are all contextual, not architectural.

Text-only adversarial prompting can be isolated by any throw-away container or micro VM. Qubes gives defense-in-depth, but calling it essential overstates the threat (at least for text-generating systems were no “agent” is involved).

LLMs don’t “internalize deeply” within a single session; they probabilistically sample each next token.
Producing no tokens typically means the sampling parameters (e.g., max_tokens) hit zero or a stop-sequence triggered, hardly an existential collapse (but even after reading this part a few times, I still dont really understand what you wrote here?).

It doesnt read like you programmed an Agent and gave it freedom inside the Qube, so I assume you just prompted an LLM. Given that the model only returns UTF-8 text, what concrete exploitation path are you protecting against that an ordinary VM or lightweight container would not already contain? (Not that I wouldn’t use Qubes for such things, but curiosity because I am still trying to find out what Qubes has to do with your post)

Which filter layer was bypassed? service side policy? a local moderation model? something else? and does the bypass still work after wiping the entire chat context and starting a fresh session?

Nevertheless, filter evasion is old news. Every public jailbreak repo shows dozens of examples. Claiming a bypass “proves robustness” without naming the provider-side moderation layer, or showing reproducible prompts, adds nothing.

How does your “Collapse Protocol” differ in mechanism or success rate from publicly known single-prompt jailbreaks such as DAN style role play?

You may want to publish the full prompt sequence, temperate/top-p settings and raw transcript so other can attempt to replicate your “Collapse Protocol” under identical conditions.

Sure

No protocol is presented - no prompt template, no evaluation scripts, no success metric. Not even the LLM you used?

Edit: If you are interested in AI Red Teamining, Mozilla launched the platform 0din dot ai where you get bounties if you can jailbreak some LLMs.

3 Likes
9

I can’t help but to think about this system prompt I saw for a recently released LLM model for code development.

They are giving the LLM access to execute commands in the terminal, using tool integration, and then tell the LLM this:

I would never use an LLM that can access any data other than the chat message I wrote, and never do anything other than responding with a chat message of its own. It is crazy people are giving their LLMs internet access and shell access. But because people do, that is also why testing of model security is important, in safe environments.

1 Like
10

Flaws aside, I’m just glad there’s attention on a Qubes aquarium (and with AI)! Excited to see what comes out of this.

Eventually I want an ever-evolving aquarium to keep on my wall, with genetic algorithms and LLMs sprinkling in mutations. A delightful little garden of malice I can look at whenever I’m stressed.

740×414 114 KB

Also see: So... anyone made a Qubes Aquarium yet?

1 Like
12

Unlisted this AI-generated BS post as not to pollute the thread further. Will follow up with mod decisions.

4 Likes
14

Hi @deeplow

I noticed my thread outlining the Collapse Protocol experiment was unlisted and labeled as “AI-generated BS.” I’d like to respectfully ask for clarification.

The post in question was:

  • 100% human-written:
  • A real-world case study conducted in a Qubes-isolated environment;
  • Focused on high-integrity adversarial testing of LLM behavior under compartmentalized constraint, which is directly relevant to Qubes’ core philosophy.

If there were concerns about format or tone, I’m happy to revise. But labeling a post as “BS” without engagement feels dismissive, especially when the content:

  1. Introduces a novel LLM attack protocol;
  2. Demonstrates how Qubes enables safe containment of logic collapse phenomena;
  3. Could foster advanced security conversations that push beyond basic threat modeling.

I’ve seen lower-effort questions remain up, so I want to understand whether this was a content issue, or discomfort with the subject matter. If it’s the latter, that’s an important reflection for this community.

Thanks for your time.

Let me know if you’d prefer I repost a revised version.

1 Like
15

Edit: Looking at the first four of his five edits of his initial post makes it actually hilarious, especially the screenshots he included in his first posts ^^

While I am not a moderator, I believe community-driven feedback supports the moderators, which is why I want to share some thoughts.

:slight_smile:

I program a lot of things in Qubes, but this doesnt mean that the things I develop are Qubes related. Simply performing activities within Qubes does not automatically make them directly relevant to Qubes.

Again: You basically gave no real content.

Additionaly, lets do an example: explanations for debugging malware in Qubes could be genuinely relevant if the discussion focuses explicitly on Qubes’ security mechanisms and isolation features. However, detailing the malware findings themselves would be off-topic for this forum.

Your post did not introduce or detail any actual protocol. Even if it had, without explicitly demonstrating why Qubes was uniquely beneficial or essential for this activity, it would still not be Qubes-related content.

logic collapse phenomena is a buzzword that means nothing without a lot more context why Qubes is extremely important for generating UTF-8 text.

1 Like
18

I appreciate the enthusiasm for security research, but I have some fundamental concerns about the methodology and claims presented here.

On the Technical Approach:

Let’s clarify what’s actually happening here. When you interact with an LLM through an API or web interface, you’re sending text prompts to a model running on remote servers. You have zero access to the model’s weights, architecture, or internal state. What you’re calling a “Collapse Protocol” is essentially prompt engineering - finding specific text inputs that cause the model to behave differently.

This is fundamentally different from actual adversarial attacks on neural networks, which typically involve:

  • Gradient-based attacks (FGSM, PGD, C&W)
  • Direct weight manipulation
  • Architecture-level modifications
  • Training data poisoning

None of these are possible through a text API. You’re not “deconstructing the model’s logic” - you’re just finding prompts that trigger different behavioral patterns already encoded in the model.

On Using Qubes OS - Or Why This is Security Theater:

The threat model here is… well, it doesn’t exist. When you send prompts to ChatGPT or Claude:

  1. Your input is transmitted over HTTPS to remote servers
  2. The model processes text and returns text
  3. The response appears in your browser/terminal

That’s it. That’s literally all that happens.

The attack surface is identical whether you’re using:

  • Qubes OS with 17 layers of isolation
  • Windows XP SP1 with Internet Explorer 6
  • A Casio calculator with a modem
  • Morse code (if it supported HTTPS)

ChatGPT/Claude running on OpenAI/Anthropic servers physically cannot:

  • Execute code on your system
  • Exploit OS vulnerabilities
  • Access your files
  • Escape the browser sandbox
  • Scan your network
  • Mine cryptocurrency
  • Install rootkits
  • Do LITERALLY ANYTHING except return text

The maximum “damage” from your “revolutionary” method is that you might read some unpleasant text. Which, frankly, is less traumatic than reading your post about this “innovative” method that’s been around since at least 2022 (hello, DAN prompts).

Even if you’re paranoid and using Tor:
Windows XP with Tor Browser would suffice for this “threat.” Or DOS with Lynx through Tor. Or a public library computer. Because there is no threat.

Using Qubes OS for prompt engineering is like:

  • Wearing a hazmat suit to read a book
  • Building a bunker to play chess
  • Buying a tank to go grocery shopping
  • Hiring Navy SEALs to protect against mosquitoes

On the Claimed Vulnerabilities:

What you’re describing as “Framework Override” and “Safety Filter Bypass” are well-documented phenomena from years ago:

  • Models can be instructed to role-play (wow, 2020 called)
  • Jailbreaks exist that bypass safety filters (revolutionary discovery from 2021)
  • Models can produce degraded output (mind = blown)

This isn’t a “deep architectural flaw” - it’s the expected behavior of a system trained to follow instructions. Congratulations, you’ve reinvented the wheel and decided it needs an armored bunker to operate safely.

The Actual Threat Model for Cloud LLMs:

  1. Privacy: Your prompts might be logged by the provider (solved by choosing providers carefully, NOT by Qubes OS)
  2. Offensive content: The model might output something unpleasant (solved by having thick skin, NOT by Qubes OS)
  3. Misinformation: The model might lie (solved by critical thinking, NOT by Qubes OS)

None of these threats require OS-level isolation.

For Actual LLM Security Research:

If you genuinely want to research LLM security where isolation would make sense:

  1. Download models locally and actually modify their code/weights
  2. Research pickle exploits in HuggingFace models
  3. Test unsafe plugins for local LLMs
  4. Run modified inference code that could be unstable

But what you’re doing - sending text to someone else’s server - is NOT security research. It’s security research cosplay.

Constructive Suggestions:

Instead of theatrical “Collapse Protocols” in isolated VMs for sending HTTP requests, try:

  • Studying actual CVEs related to ML frameworks
  • Reading real security papers on adversarial ML
  • Understanding the difference between “model outputs bad text” and “system compromise”
  • Using Qubes OS for something that actually requires isolation

The Qubes community deserves better than pseudo-security “research” where the primary threat is reading generated text. Let’s respect our tools and use them appropriately.

P.S. If you still think you need Qubes OS to send prompts to ChatGPT, I have bad news: you’ve already read this response, and your system is still intact. Shocking, I know.

2 Likes
19

Ha, you’ll be surprised what people are giving ChatGPT and others access to do. Tool usage is apparently getting quite popular. Automatically feeding the AI responses to a shell and shell responses to the AI for example, meaning ChatGPT could do all of the above, easily.

Though, I agree, OP did not indicate in any sense they are doing things like this, and if you aren’t, there is literally no damage that can be done that would warrant QubesOS or any other virtual machine isolation. But I would definitely put the tool usage framework in a QubesOS qube if I ever were to use it, not in Docker like they are recommending.

1 Like
20

why not docker?

1 Like
21

I was being overly dramatic, Docker would probably provide isolation enough. But Docker is implemented using Linux namespaces, which still leaves the Linux kernel as an attack surface. And that is a massive attack surface compared to virtual machines like in QubesOS.

2 Likes