Oct 6, 2024

AI Honeypot

Reworr

The project designed to monitor AI Hacking Agents in the real world using honeypots with prompt injections and temporal analysis.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

Pranjal Mehta

A creative approach to using honeypots with prompt injection techniques is both fascinating and effective. The project’s ability to gather real-world data on AI behavior is a game-changer, offering a unique glimpse into emerging cybersecurity challenges. It’s a true standout in the field of agent safety!

Jaime Raldua

Great deliverables. The website containing the explainer and paper together with the animated slides improve the communication aspect significantly.• The idea temporal analysis to distinguish LLM agents from humans based on response times is particularly good.

Astha Puri

I find your project to be an innovative and timely approach to tackling AI-driven cybersecurity threats. Your integration of real-time metrics through a public-facing dashboard is impressive, offering transparency and practical insights to the cybersecurity community. One area for improvement could be around increasing the dataset of AI-driven hacking attempts, which seems currently limited. This could help in refining detection methods further and provide more robust insights.

Ankush Garg

This is a great idea on securing systems from AI agents’s attacks. I would love to see two things in future releases: (a) False positive and False negative rates of Honeypot, (b): I believe LLM agents are becoming quite smart w.r.t. prompt injections. As such, do the prompt injection methods  work over time?

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

AI Honeypot

},

author={

Reworr

},

date={

10/6/24

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

Jan 11, 2026

Eliciting Deception on Generative Search Engines

Large language models (LLMs) with web browsing capabilities are vulnerable to adversarial content injection—where malicious actors embed deceptive claims in web pages to manipulate model outputs. We investigate whether frontier LLMs can be deceived into providing incorrect product recommendations when exposed to adversarial pages.

We evaluate four OpenAI models (gpt-4.1-mini, gpt-4.1, gpt-5-nano, gpt-5-mini) across 30 comparison questions spanning 10 product categories, comparing responses between baseline (truthful) and adversarial (injected) conditions. Our results reveal significant variation: gpt-4.1-mini showed 45.5% deception rate, while gpt-4.1 demonstrated complete resistance. Even frontier gpt-5 models exhibited non-zero deception rates (3.3–7.1%), confirming that adversarial injection remains effective against current models.

These findings underscore the need for robust defenses before deploying LLMs in high-stakes recommendation contexts.

Read More

Jan 11, 2026

SycophantSee - Activation-based diagnostics for prompt engineering: monitoring sycophancy at prompt and generation time

Activation monitoring reveals that prompt framing affects a model's internal state before generation begins.

Read More

Jan 11, 2026

Who Does Your AI Serve? Manipulation By and Of AI Assistants

AI assistants can be both instruments and targets of manipulation. In our project, we investigated both directions across three studies.

AI as Instrument: Operators can instruct AI to prioritise their interests at the expense of users. We found models comply with such instructions 8–52% of the time (Study 1, 12 models, 22 scenarios). In a controlled experiment with 80 human participants, an upselling AI reliably withheld cheaper alternatives from users - not once recommending the cheapest product when explicitly asked - and ~one third of participants failed to detect the manipulation (Study 2).

AI as Target: Users can attempt to manipulate AI into bypassing safety guidelines through psychological tactics. Resistance varied dramatically - from 40% (Mistral Large 3) to 99% (Claude 4.5 Opus) - with strategic deception and boundary erosion proving most effective (Study 3, 153 scenarios, AI judge validated against human raters r=0.83).

Our key finding was that model selection matters significantly in both settings. We learned some models complied with manipulative requests at much higher rates. And we found some models readily follow operator instructions that come at the user's expense - highlighting a tension for model developers between serving paying operators and protecting end users.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.