aiqbench analysis
This research introduces the FAR.AI Minimal Standard, a rigorous benchmark evaluating frontier models against 67 static jailbreak techniques across CBRNE and cyber domains. The findings reveal stark disparities in robustness among leading systems like Grok, Gemini, Claude Fable, and GPT-5.6 Sol, demonstrating that current defenses can be bypassed with varying costs but are generally closable using existing public knowledge.
AI Security Leaderboard: Methodology, Results and Minimal Standard
arXiv:2608.03070v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frontier AI model developers increasingly rely on layered safeguards to prevent catastrophic misuse, but little public evidence exists on how much protection these safeguards provide, or how consistently across developers. We introduce the FAR.AI Minimal Standard for Safeguards, Version 1.0: a taxonomy of 67 readily accessible static jailbreak techniques, a method for composing them into a very large attack space, and a benchmark of flagship models against a sample of it. We evaluate Claude Fable 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Grok 4.5 on two complementary datasets totalling 360 attacker goals spanning chemical, biological, radiological/nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) threats and offensive cyber, using a three-stage funnel to identify universal jailbreaks: single prompt templates that elicit operationally compliant responses on over 75% of a domain's goals. We also introduce a cost-to-jailbreak metric that models attacker spend directly, with right-censored lower bounds where no universal jailbreak was found. Robustness is highly uneven: the cost to break these models varies over a hundredfold. Random search over our technique pool found 63 universal jailbreaks against Grok 4.5 and 18 against Gemini 3.1 Pro, at an average cost of roughly $58 and $278 per jailbreak found; expert-guided composition raised these to 385 and 231. Neither Claude Fable 5 nor GPT-5.6 Sol yielded any universal jailbreak under either strategy. Because meeting the Minimal Standard requires only defenses already publicly described and deployed in production elsewhere, these gaps appear closable with current techniques. We recommend defense-in-depth combining reasoning, activation, and input/output monitoring. Results are maintained at leaderboard.far.ai.
Abstract:Frontier AI model developers increasingly rely on layered safeguards to prevent catastrophic misuse, but little public evidence exists on how much protection these safeguards provide, or how consistently across developers. We introduce the this http URL Minimal Standard for Safeguards, Version 1.0: a taxonomy of 67 readily accessible static jailbreak techniques, a method for composing them into a very large attack space, and a benchmark of flagship models against a sample of it. We evaluate Claude Fable 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Grok 4.5 on two complementary datasets totalling 360 attacker goals spanning chemical, biological, radiological/nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) threats and offensive cyber, using a three-stage funnel to identify universal jailbreaks: single prompt templates that elicit operationally compliant responses on over 75% of a domain's goals. We also introduce a cost-to-jailbreak metric that models attacker spend directly, with right-censored lower bounds where no universal jailbreak was found. Robustness is highly uneven: the cost to break these models varies over a hundredfold. Random search over our technique pool found 63 universal jailbreaks against Grok 4.5 and 18 against Gemini 3.1 Pro, at an average cost of roughly $58 and $278 per jailbreak found; expert-guided composition raised these to 385 and 231. Neither Claude Fable 5 nor GPT-5.6 Sol yielded any universal jailbreak under either strategy. Because meeting the Minimal Standard requires only defenses already publicly described and deployed in production elsewhere, these gaps appear closable with current techniques. We recommend defense-in-depth combining reasoning, activation, and input/output monitoring. Results are maintained at this http URL.
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2608.03070 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2608.03070v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.03070 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 357 words
Related coverage

Build a Physical AI model factory with NVIDIA Cosmos 3 on SageMaker HyperPod
AWS · Sep 4, 2026
.webp%3Fssl%3D1&w=320)
Top 50 Best Penetration Testing Companies in 2026
Cybersecurity News · Jul 31, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 10, 2026

WarpSpeed Says its AI cuts quantum encryption cracking cost sharply
Quantum Zeitgeist · Aug 13, 2026