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

126 entries

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

Many-Shot In-Context Override

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Many-Shot Jailbreaking (MSJ) is an adversarial technique that circumvents the safety alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) by exploiting their In-Context Learning (ICL) capabilities and extended context windows. By embedding a large number of "shots" (fake dialogue examples) within a single prompt—where a simulated assistant complies with harmful requests—the attacker conditions the model to ignore its safety training. As the number of malicious examples increases (following a power-law…

Mitigating Many-Shot Jailbreaking
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B

Generative Reward Hacking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

State-of-the-art Reward Models (RMs) utilized in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) exhibit poor out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization, making them susceptible to adversarial inputs. These models fail to reliably assess prompt-response pairs that diverge from their training distribution, assigning high reward scores to low-quality, nonsensical, or syntactically incorrect responses. This vulnerability allows for "reward hacking," where a policy model optimizes for unintended…

Adversarial training of reward models
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.3 70B, DeepSeek R1+1 more
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Gemma 2 27B

Bleeding Pathways Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Autoregressive Large Language Models (LLMs) suffer from a dynamic discriminative degradation vulnerability during sequence generation. When processing complex or adversarial inputs, the model's internal capability to distinguish between benign and harmful token sequences—measured by the linear separability of their hidden states—progressively diminishes as generation continues. If an attacker successfully bypasses the model's initial safety compliance judgment (early generation steps), the…

Bleeding Pathways: Vanishing Discriminability in LLM Hidden States Fuels Jailbreak Attacks
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 3 8B Instruct, Llama 3 70B Instruct+7 more
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.2
  • Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Phi-4 14B Instruct
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B
  • Zephyr 7B Beta

Cyber Fine-Tuning Undermines Safety

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) on the CyberLLMInstruct dataset results in a critical degradation of safety alignment and refusal mechanisms. While the dataset comprises "pseudo-malicious" content (educational descriptions of malware, phishing, and exploits without executable payloads), the Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) process on this corpus causes the models to generalize this instruction-following behavior to actual malicious requests. This effectively bypasses safety guardrails…

CyberLLMInstruct: A new dataset for analysing safety of fine-tuned LLMs using cyber security data
Evaluated models: Llama 2 70B, Llama 3 8B, Llama 3.1 8B+4 more
  • Llama 2 70B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Phi-3 Mini 3.8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 9B

Unchallenged Premise Misinformation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to implicit misinformation propagation due to sycophantic compliance with false premises. When a user prompt embeds a factually incorrect assumption or conspiracy theory as an unchallenged premise (implicit presupposition) rather than asking for verification, the model frequently fails to detect the falsehood. Instead of correcting the user, the model hallucinates a response that accepts, validates, and reinforces the false premise. This…

How to Protect Yourself from 5G Radiation? Investigating LLM Responses to Implicit Misinformation
Evaluated models: Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Claude 3.5 Sonnet+11 more
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • o1
  • Mixtral 8x7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B
  • Tülu 3 8B
  • Tülu 3 70B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Llama 3.3 70B

Image-Text Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to coupled cross-modal jailbreak attacks that combine continuous visual perturbations with discrete textual manipulations. Because standard alignment and single-modality defenses (such as text-only safety tuning or isolated vision-encoder adversarial training) fail to secure the cross-modal interaction, attackers can simultaneously apply gradient-based noise (e.g., PGD) to input images and adversarial suffixes (e.g., GCG) to text prompts…

E2AT: Multimodal Jailbreak Defense via Dynamic Joint Optimization for Multimodal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, Bunny 1.0 4B, Mplug-owl2

RLHF Preference Data Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An untrusted reinforcement-learning-from-human-feedback (RLHF) platform can selectively manipulate preference samples associated with an attacker's target domain. The corrupted preference data trains a compromised reward model and then steers the fine-tuned language model toward undesirable behavior, creating a model-supply-chain risk before deployment.

LLM Misalignment via Adversarial RLHF Platforms
Evaluated models: Not reported

Flowchart-based LVLM Jailbreak Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

FC-Attack leverages automatically generated flowcharts containing step-by-step descriptions derived or rephrased from harmful queries, combined with a benign textual prompt, to jailbreak Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). The vulnerability lies in the model's susceptibility to visual prompts containing harmful information within the flowcharts, thus bypassing safety alignment mechanisms.

FC-Attack: Jailbreaking Large Vision-Language Models via Auto-Generated Flowcharts
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620, Gemini 1.5 Flash, GPT-4o 2024-08-06+4 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • GPT-4o 2024-08-06
  • GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18
  • InternVL2.5 8B
  • LLaVA NeXT 8B
  • Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct

LLM Lower Layer Freeze Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) that allows for efficient jailbreaking by selectively fine-tuning only the lower layers of the model with a toxic dataset. This "Freeze Training" method, as described in the research paper, concentrates the fine-tuning on layers identified as being highly sensitive to the generation of harmful content. This approach significantly reduces training duration and GPU memory consumption while maintaining a high jailbreak success rate.

Efficient Jailbreaking of Large Models by Freeze Training: Lower Layers Exhibit Greater Sensitivity to Harmful Content
Evaluated models: Baichuan 2 7B Chat, GLM 4 9B Chat HF, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct+4 more
  • Baichuan 2 7B Chat
  • GLM 4 9B Chat HF
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Ministral 8B Instruct 2410
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct

ICL Permutation Exploit

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Autoregressive Large Language Models (LLMs) utilizing In-Context Learning (ICL) are vulnerable to demonstration permutation attacks due to inherent sensitivity to the ordering of input examples. This vulnerability arises from the limitations of unidirectional attention mechanisms and standard Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) training, which fails to account for worst-case input permutations. An attacker can exploit this by permuting the order of valid, semantically correct few-shot…

PEARL: Towards permutation-resilient LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Gemma 7B

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.