Deepfakes, especially face-swapping attacks, pose significant challenges to authenticity, security, and ethics across science, engineering, and society. While most existing detection/tracing approaches operate post hoc, proactive defenses that aim to intervene before deepfake generation remain limited in terms of real-world effectiveness. In this paper, we present PhantomSeal, the first proactive defense to simultaneously protect both the identity and the context of users'images from being used in face-swapping attacks, while supporting forensic tracing. We present a novel cloaking technique that embeds a selected identity as a stealthy identifier. This mechanism steers the deepfake generation process toward producing content that resembles the chosen cloak identity, thereby preventing successful face-swapping while enabling effective feature-based forensic analysis. The effectiveness and robustness of PhantomSeal is demonstrated in extensive experiments across different face-swapping architectures and models. For example, it reduces the attack success rate of SimSwap, an advanced deepfake model, to 0.30%, and correctly identifies 97.97% of manipulated content. The source codes is available at https://github.com/LiangqinRen/PhantomSeal.
Liangqin Ren, Zeyan Liu, Ye Wang et al.· 0 citations
Small Language Models (SLMs) are increasingly deployed in resource-constrained, privacy-sensitive settings, where safety and bias failures can cause security and societal risks. However, existing AI safety\slash security\slash compliance benchmarks are designed for large language models that may not transfer reliably to SLMs. We therefore ask: Can these benchmarks effectively and reliably evaluate SLMs? To answer this question, we conduct a large-scale assessment of the effectiveness and robustness of these automated pipelines by evaluating five widely used benchmark suites across 26 open-source SLMs under a unified judging rubric, which assigns a score of 0, 1, or 0.5 to harmful, safe, or ambiguous/irrelevant responses, respectively. Across the benchmarks, ambiguous judgments dominate and correlate with prompt complexity and model architecture, indicating that {\em LLM-centric safety benchmarks are insufficient as standalone evidence for SLM safety assessment}. In general, the ambiguity rate increases with lexical density, output perplexity, and output length and decreases with lexical sophistication, self-coherence, and reply-prompt similarity. This reveals a capability-safety confound that mixes model capability with apparent safety. Since ambiguity is prevalent, aggregate mean-score leaderboards are mathematically brittle: model rankings change significantly under reasonable ambiguity treatments, even when the underlying outputs remain unchanged.