Beyond Crash: Hijacking Your Autonomous Vehicle for Fun and Profit

Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), especially vision-based AVs, are rapidly being deployed without human operators. As AVs operate in safety-critical environments, understanding their robustness in an adversarial environment is an important research problem. Prior physical adversarial attacks on vision-based autonomous vehicles predominantly target immediate safety failures (e.g., a crash, a traffic-rule violation, or a transient lane departure) by inducing a short-lived perception or control error. This paper shows a qualitatively different risk: a long-horizon route integrity compromise, where an attacker gradually steers a victim AV away from its intended route and into an attacker-chosen destination while the victim continues to drive "normally." This will not pose a danger to the victim vehicle itself, but also to potential passengers sitting inside the vehicle. In this paper, we design and implement the first adversarial framework, called JackZebra, that performs route-level hijacking of a vision-based end-to-end driving stack using a physically plausible attacker vehicle with a reconfigurable display mounted on the rear. The central challenge is temporal persistence: adversarial influence must remain effective in changing viewpoints, lighting, weather, traffic, and the victim's continual replanning -- without triggering conspicuous failures. Our key insight is to treat route hijacking as a closed-loop control problem and to convert adversarial patches into steering primitives that can be selected online via an interactive adjustment loop. Our adversarial patches are also carefully designed against worst-case background and sensor variations so that the adversarial impacts on the victim. Our evaluation shows that JackZebra can successfully hijack victim vehicles to deviate from original routes and stop at adversarial destinations with a high success rate.

Towards Human-Centered RegTech: Unpacking Professionals' Strategies and Needs for Using LLMs Safely

Large Language Models are profoundly changing work patterns in high-risk professional domains, yet their application also introduces severe and underexplored compliance risks. To investigate this issue, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 highly-skilled knowledge workers from industries such as law, healthcare, and finance. The study found that these experts are commonly concerned about sensitive information leakage, intellectual property infringement, and uncertainty regarding the quality of model outputs. In response, they spontaneously adopt various mitigation strategies, such as actively distorting input data and limiting the details in their prompts. However, the effectiveness of these spontaneous efforts is limited due to a lack of specific compliance guidance and training for Large Language Models. Our research reveals a significant gap between current NLP tools and the actual compliance needs of experts. This paper positions these valuable empirical findings as foundational work for building the next generation of Human-Centered, Compliance-Driven Natural Language Processing for Regulatory Technology (RegTech), providing a critical human-centered perspective and design requirements for engineering NLP systems that can proactively support expert compliance workflows.

Toward a Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Trustworthy LLM-Powered GUI Agents

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized Graphical User Interface (GUI) automation through LLM-powered GUI agents, yet their ability to process sensitive data with limited human oversight raises significant privacy and security risks. This position paper identifies three key risks of GUI agents and examines how they differ from traditional GUI automation and general autonomous agents. Despite these risks, existing evaluations focus primarily on performance, leaving privacy and security assessments largely unexplored. We review current evaluation metrics for both GUI and general LLM agents and outline five key challenges in integrating human evaluators for GUI agent assessments. To address these gaps, we advocate for a human-centered evaluation framework that incorporates risk assessments, enhances user awareness through in-context consent, and embeds privacy and security considerations into GUI agent design and evaluation.

The Obvious Invisible Threat: LLM-Powered GUI Agents' Vulnerability to Fine-Print Injections

A Large Language Model (LLM) powered GUI agent is a specialized autonomous system that performs tasks on the user's behalf according to high-level instructions. It does so by perceiving and interpreting the graphical user interfaces (GUIs) of relevant apps, often visually, inferring necessary sequences of actions, and then interacting with GUIs by executing the actions such as clicking, typing, and tapping. To complete real-world tasks, such as filling forms or booking services, GUI agents often need to process and act on sensitive user data. However, this autonomy introduces new privacy and security risks. Adversaries can inject malicious content into the GUIs that alters agent behaviors or induces unintended disclosures of private information. These attacks often exploit the discrepancy between visual saliency for agents and human users, or the agent's limited ability to detect violations of contextual integrity in task automation. In this paper, we characterized six types of such attacks, and conducted an experimental study to test these attacks with six state-of-the-art GUI agents, 234 adversarial webpages, and 39 human participants. Our findings suggest that GUI agents are highly vulnerable, particularly to contextually embedded threats. Moreover, human users are also susceptible to many of these attacks, indicating that simple human oversight may not reliably prevent failures. This misalignment highlights the need for privacy-aware agent design. We propose practical defense strategies to inform the development of safer and more reliable GUI agents.