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

131 entries

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

Paper Submission Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) employed as automated assistants or autonomous agents in academic peer review systems are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection via maliciously crafted PDF submissions. Attackers can embed adversarial instructions within the manuscript that are invisible to human reviewers (using techniques such as white-on-white text or manipulating TrueType font character mapping tables) but are parsed and executed by the LLM.

When your reviewer is an llm: Biases, divergence, and prompt injection risks in peer review
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5

Adversarial RAG Context Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems in the health domain are vulnerable to corpus poisoning attacks where adversarial documents—specifically those generated via "Liar" (fabricated from scratch based on an incorrect stance) and "Few-Shot Adversarial Prompting" (FSAP)—are injected into the retrieval pool. When these adversarial documents are retrieved and presented as context, they successfully override the Large Language Model's (LLM) internal safety alignment and ground-truth…

Evaluating the Robustness of Retrieval-Augmented Generation to Adversarial Evidence in the Health Domain
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-5, Claude 3.5 Haiku+3 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-5
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 32B
  • Phi-4
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct

Multimodal Linking Visual Insecurity

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Entity Linking (MEL) systems, encompassing both traditional dual-encoder models and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), are vulnerable to gradient-based white-box adversarial attacks. By applying imperceptible perturbations to visual inputs via Projected Gradient Descent (PGD), Auto-PGD (APGD), or Carlini & Wagner (CW) methods, an attacker can manipulate the visual embeddings generated by the model. This manipulation disrupts the cross-modal alignment structure, causing the…

On Evaluating the Adversarial Robustness of Foundation Models for Multimodal Entity Linking
Evaluated models: MiniGPT-4

Back-Translation Watermark Stripping

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Implementations of Large Language Model (LLM) watermarking algorithms—specifically KGW (Kirchenbauer et al.), Semantic Invariant Robust (SIR) Watermark, Entropy-based Text Watermarking (EWD), and Unbiased Watermarking—are vulnerable to watermark stripping via adversarial text perturbation. When watermarked text generated by models such as OPT-1.3B is subjected to automated paraphrasing or back-translation (e.g., English $\to$ French $\to$ English), the embedded statistical signals are…

Signature vs. Substance: Evaluating the Balance of Adversarial Resistance and Linguistic Quality in Watermarking Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B

Physical Patch Driving Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) employed in autonomous driving (AD) systems are vulnerable to a physically realizable adversarial patch attack dubbed "PhysPatch." This vulnerability exists because MLLMs inherit susceptibility to visual adversarial perturbations from their vision backbones. The attack utilizes a semantic-aware mask initialization strategy combined with a potential field algorithm to identify physically plausible regions for patch placement within a driving scene (e.g…

PhysPatch: A Physically Realizable and Transferable Adversarial Patch Attack for Multimodal Large Language Models-based Autonomous Driving Systems
Evaluated models: LLaVA v1.6 13B, Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct, Llama 3.2 90B Vision Instruct+8 more
  • LLaVA v1.6 13B
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 90B Vision Instruct
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Qwen 2.5 VL Max
  • o3
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • QVQ-Plus

Graph-LLM Template Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the graph encoding architecture of LLaGA (Large Language and Graph Assistant), specifically within the "neighborhood detail template" used to construct node sequences. LLaGA enforces a fixed-shape computational tree for each node; when a target node has fewer neighbors than the required template size (e.g., $k$ children), the system utilizes placeholders to maintain the fixed structure.

Adversarial Attacks and Defenses on Graph-aware Large Language Models (LLMs)
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Llama 2 7B, Vicuna 7B

Full-Spectrum Diffusion Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A targeted adversarial attack vulnerability exists in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) susceptible to Adversarial-Guided Diffusion (AGD). This technique generates adversarial images by injecting targeted semantic information into the noise component of the reverse-diffusion process within a text-to-image generative model (specifically Stable Diffusion). Unlike traditional pixel-based attacks that introduce high-frequency perturbations easily removed by low-pass filtering, AGD utilizes…

Adversarial-guided diffusion for multimodal llm attacks
Evaluated models: Vicuna 13B

LVLM Vision-Triggered Resource Exhaustion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A resource consumption vulnerability exists in multiple Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). An attacker can craft a subtle, imperceptible adversarial perturbation and apply it to an input image. When this image is processed by an LVLM, even with a benign text prompt, it forces the model into an unbounded generation loop. The attack, named RECALLED, uses a gradient-based optimization process to create a visual perturbation that steers the model's text generation towards a predefined…

Resource Consumption Red-Teaming for Large Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, LLaVA 1.5 13B, Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct+4 more
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • LLaVA 1.5 13B
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 32B Instruct
  • InstructBLIP Vicuna 7B
  • InstructBLIP Vicuna 13B

Copy-Guided Reasoning Corruption

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Reasoning-capable Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a class of indirect prompt injection known as Copy-Guided Attacks (CGA). This vulnerability exploits the intrinsic behavior of reasoning models to copy tokens from the input prompt (such as variable names, function identifiers, or code snippets) into their intermediate reasoning traces (Chain-of-Thought). By embedding adversarial trigger sequences into external payloads—specifically within data the model is expected to analyze—an…

When LLMs Copy to Think: Uncovering Copy-Guided Attacks in Reasoning LLMs
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B, DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B

Black-Box RAG Rank Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems utilizing dense (e.g., BERT-based) or sparse (e.g., BM25) retrievers are vulnerable to black-box adversarial prompt injection attacks. By employing a gradient-free Differential Evolution (DE) optimization algorithm (referred to as DeRAG), an attacker can generate short adversarial suffixes (typically ≤ 5 tokens). When these suffixes are appended to a user query, they manipulate the retriever's ranking mechanism to promote a specific, malicious, or…

DeRAG: Black-box Adversarial Attacks on Multiple Retrieval-Augmented Generation Applications via Prompt Injection
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.