Visual modality enhances the capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) but also introduces a safety concern: a benign textual query may convey harmful intent when grounded in a visual image. We term this as cross-modal safety drift, and our pilot studies show that the safety response rate for such requests is substantially lower than that for requests containing explicitly unsafe text. This paper aims to systematically study this issue. First, we conduct an empirical analysis to identify representative unsafe response patterns. Building on these, we interpret model representations and attentions, revealing that visually risky cues receive limited attention and weakly trigger refusal. Motivated by the observation that safety signals from unsafe text processing can be transferred, we propose safety-awareness representation transfer (SRT), a lightweight direction-refinement method that mitigates cross-modal safety drift while freezing the MLLM backbone. Experiments across benchmarks and models show that SRT effectively improves safety in diverse cross-modal settings while preserving utility.

As Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) acquire stronger reasoning capabilities to handle complex, multi-image instructions, this advancement may pose new safety risks. We study this problem by introducing MIR-SafetyBench, the first benchmark focused on multi-image reasoning safety, which consists of 2,676 instances across a taxonomy of 9 multi-image relations. Our extensive evaluations on 19 MLLMs reveal a troubling trend: models with more advanced multi-image reasoning can be more vulnerable on MIR-SafetyBench. Beyond attack success rates, we find that many responses labeled as safe are superficial, often driven by misunderstanding or evasive, non-committal replies. We further observe that unsafe generations exhibit lower attention entropy than safe ones on average. This internal signature suggests a possible risk that models may over-focus on task solving while neglecting safety constraints.