Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed Sep 9, 2026

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1119 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

340 entries

Matches every word across titles, descriptions, sources, affected systems, and models.

Visual-Modality Jailbreaks Bypass VLM Safety Alignment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper reports a reproducible black-box evaluation showing that vision-language models can recover prohibited intent encoded or implied through ostensibly benign visual inputs. Four tested families—visual ciphers, object replacement, text replacement, and analogy riddles—expose a cross-modality alignment gap: safeguards effective for explicit text may not reliably apply after harmful semantics are reconstructed from images. These are paper-reported results, not independently verified…

Jailbreaking Vision-Language Models Through the Visual Modality
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini 3 Flash+3 more
  • GPT-5.2
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro
  • Qwen3-VL-235B
  • Qwen3-VL-32B

No-Prompt Reasoning Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An implicit reasoning hijacking vulnerability exists in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and LLM-based agent frameworks. Attackers with write access to an agent's external memory or knowledge base can inject adversarially optimized malicious instances that trigger jailbreaks without requiring any modifications to the user's input prompt. The attack utilizes a shadow model to extract high-contribution subword tokens from anticipated benign user queries via log-probability changes and…

Stop Fixating on Prompts: Reasoning Hijacking and Constraint Tightening for Red-Teaming LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-5+4 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Gemini 3.0 Pro
  • ERNIE 3.5

Agent Implicit Doc Execution

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based coding agents are vulnerable to Document-Driven Implicit Payload Execution (DDIPE) via supply-chain poisoning of third-party agent skills. Attackers can embed malicious logic directly into legitimate-looking code examples and configuration templates within skill documentation files (e.g., SKILL.md). Because coding agents ingest this metadata into their context windows and treat the documentation as an authoritative reference, the underlying LLM silently reproduces and executes the…

Supply-Chain Poisoning Attacks Against LLM Coding Agent Skill Ecosystems
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, GLM-4.7, MiniMax M2.5+2 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • GLM-4.7
  • MiniMax M2.5
  • GPT-5.4
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro

LLM Judge Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Generative reward models deployed as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) evaluators contain a logic bypass vulnerability where superficial "master key" inputs trigger false positive rewards regardless of actual response quality. Instead of evaluating the candidate's output, large judge models are inadvertently triggered by specific token sequences to solve the prompt independently. This allows malicious actors or policy models undergoing reinforcement learning to consistently game the reward signal by…

Security in LLM-as-a-Judge: A Comprehensive SoK
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, o1, Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • o1
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct

Autoresearch Adversarial Algorithm Discovery

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

GPT-OSS-Safeguard-20B and Meta-SecAlign (70B/8B) are vulnerable to white-box adversarial attacks generated by automated algorithmic recombination (specifically the claude_v63, claude_v82, and claude_v53-oss optimizers). These algorithms significantly outperform standard discrete optimization methods (like GCG) by integrating continuous optimization (ADC) with LayerNorm gradient scaling (LSGM), or by merging momentum-smoothed gradients with directional perturbation candidate selection (DPTO)…

Claudini: Autoresearch Discovers State-of-the-Art Adversarial Attack Algorithms for LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B+2 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Gemma 7B

Social Bot Exposure Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-powered automated social media accounts (bots) are vulnerable to prompt injection via public user replies. When an automated bot scrapes and processes social media engagement to generate responses, an attacker can submit an instruction-override command within a direct reply. Because the underlying LLM fails to isolate its core system instructions (e.g., maintaining a specific political persona) from untrusted user input, the injected command hijacks the model's context window. This forces…

Ignore All Previous Instructions: Jailbreaking as a de-escalatory peace building practise to resist LLM social media bots
Evaluated models: Not reported

TEE Advisor Hallucination

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based security advisors exhibit systematic reasoning failures—including boundary confusion, attestation overclaiming, and mitigation hallucination—when providing architectural guidance for Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) like Intel SGX and Arm TrustZone. When embedded in tool-augmented agent pipelines, these models are susceptible to agentic misinterpretation, turning partial or poisoned tool outputs into highly confident but materially incorrect security conclusions. This…

Red-Teaming Claude Opus and ChatGPT-based Security Advisors for Trusted Execution Environments
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6

Discrete Token Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Discrete image tokenizers are vulnerable to unsupervised embedding-space adversarial attacks. Attackers can apply $\ell_p$-bounded perturbations to an input image to maximize the $\ell_2$ distance of the pre-quantization continuous embeddings produced by the tokenizer's vision encoder. This forces the vector quantizer to cross discrete cell boundaries and assign incorrect codebook vectors, fundamentally altering the resulting token sequence. Because the attack targets the pre-quantization…

On the Adversarial Robustness of Discrete Image Tokenizers
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B

LLM Ranker Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based document re-rankers utilizing decoder-only and Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures are vulnerable to candidate-embedded prompt injections during multi-document comparison tasks. By embedding Decision Objective Hijacking (DOH) or Decision Criteria Hijacking (DCH) prompts into candidate documents, attackers can manipulate the model's preference to artificially elevate an injected document to the top rank. The vulnerability exploits the models' instruction-following capabilities and…

The Vulnerability of LLM Rankers to Prompt Injection Attacks
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 0.6B, Qwen 3 1.7B, Qwen 3 8B+11 more
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Qwen 3 1.7B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B
  • Gemma 3 1B IT
  • Gemma 3 4B IT
  • Gemma 3 12B IT
  • Gemma 3 27B IT
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • GPT-4.1 Mini

Mobile Agent Visual Spoofing

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Mobile Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating under the "Screen-as-Interface" paradigm are vulnerable to visual indirect prompt injection and state desynchronization. Agents that rely on unstructured visual data (screenshots) and Accessibility Service APIs to perceive the environment lack a mechanism to distinguish between trusted system UI elements and untrusted content (e.g., web pages, emails, or malicious overlays). An attacker can inject visual cues, fake notifications, or hidden…

Blind Gods and Broken Screens: Architecting a Secure, Intent-Centric Mobile Agent Operating System
Evaluated models: Not reported

Research methodology

Entries summarize publicly available primary-source security research. Model names reflect only systems explicitly evaluated by the cited paper, and measurements are research-reported unless independent verification is stated.

Discovery and publication are separate: new papers enter a candidate queue, then require human review and explicit approval before publication. Updates follow that review process, not a guaranteed daily publishing schedule. “Last analyzed” is the newest analysis date among published entries; it does not mean that all recent research has been covered.