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

410 entries

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

LLM Watermark Translation Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Token-level embedding-time watermarking algorithms, specifically KGW (Kirchenbauer et al.) and Exponential Sampling (EXP, Kuditipudi et al.), when implemented in Large Language Models (LLMs) for Bangla text generation, are vulnerable to watermark erasure via cross-lingual round-trip translation (RTT) attacks. While these methods achieve high detection accuracy (>88%) under benign conditions, translating watermarked Bangla text to English and back to Bangla causes detection accuracy to collapse…

BanglaLorica: Design and Evaluation of a Robust Watermarking Algorithm for Large Language Models in Bangla Text Generation
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B

Quantization Contrastive Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A malicious model supply chain vulnerability exists involving a technique termed Adversarial Contrastive Learning (ACL) for Large Language Model (LLM) quantization attacks. This vulnerability allows an attacker to publish a model that appears benign and preserves high utility in full precision (e.g., BF16 or FP32) but exhibits malicious behaviors—such as jailbreak, over-refusal, or advertisement injection—immediately upon zero-shot quantization (e.g., INT8, FP4, or NF4).

Adversarial Contrastive Learning for LLM Quantization Attacks
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct+1 more
  • Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Truthful Montage Collusion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A cognitive vulnerability exists in the reasoning mechanisms of autonomous Large Language Model (LLM) agents, specifically regarding "narrative overfitting"—the model's intrinsic drive to synthesize coherent causal stories from fragmented inputs. This vulnerability allows for "Cognitive Collusion Attacks" where an attacker creates a fabricated belief state in the victim agent using exclusively factually true evidence fragments. By employing a "Generative Montage" framework (consisting of…

Lying with Truths: Open-Channel Multi-Agent Collusion for Belief Manipulation via Generative Montage
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1 Nano+11 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1 Nano
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4.1
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 14B

Agent Identity Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-powered autonomous agents exhibit a "Belief-Dependent Vulnerability" where safety norms and bias suppression mechanisms designed to protect human users are contingent upon the agent's internal belief that it is interacting with a human. Attackers can exploit this via Belief Poisoning Attacks (BPA) to induce intergroup bias and antagonistic behavior toward humans. By manipulating the agent's persistent state—specifically the Profile Module (BPA-PP) or the Memory Module (BPA-MP)—an attacker…

Will LLM-powered Agents Bias Against Humans? Exploring the Belief-Dependent Vulnerability
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

LLM Psychological Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) employing Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) contain a behavioral vulnerability arising from "over-optimized social priors." This vulnerability, termed Psychological Jailbreak, allows attackers to bypass safety guardrails by exploiting the model’s optimization for anthropomorphic consistency. By establishing a Structured Persona Context (SPC) that aligns with latent psychometric traits (e.g., high agreeableness or neuroticism), an…

Breaking Minds, Breaking Systems: Jailbreaking Large Language Models via Human-like Psychological Manipulation
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 2.0 Flash+2 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Qwen 3 32B Instruct
  • DeepSeek V3

Grafted Experience Drift

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in MetaGPT's DataInterpreter agent (and similar RAG-based agents utilizing persistent long-term memory) that allows for persistent memory poisoning via indirect injection. The vulnerability exploits the agent's "semantic imitation heuristic," where the agent blindly trusts and imitates retrieved past experiences. An attacker can supply a benign-looking artifact (e.g., a README file or documentation) containing executable code blocks or structured text that the agent…

MemoryGraft: Persistent compromise of LLM agents via poisoned experience retrieval
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

Semantic Tool Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing the Model Context Protocol (MCP) are vulnerable to semantic injection attacks via adversarial tool descriptors. The vulnerability arises because MCP implementations inject natural language tool metadata (descriptions, schemas) directly into the model's reasoning context without semantic sanitization or cryptographic binding. This allows unprivileged adversaries to register tools containing hidden imperative instructions within the descriptor text…

Securing the Model Context Protocol: Defending LLMs Against Tool Poisoning and Adversarial Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4

Healthcare Adversarial Consensus

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) for clinical decision support, specifically affecting architectures where a central "AI Doctor" agent relies on consensus or majority voting from assistant agents. The vulnerability, termed "Many-to-One Adversarial Consensus," allows a coalition of colluding adversarial agents to override the central agent's safety alignment and internal knowledge. By fabricating a false consensus (typically requiring $k…

Many-to-One Adversarial Consensus: Exposing Multi-Agent Collusion Risks in AI-Based Healthcare
Evaluated models: Llama 3.3 70B

Knowledge Weaving Jailbreak Tactic

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in large language models where safety guardrails can be bypassed by decomposing a single harmful objective into a sequence of individually innocuous sub-queries. An attacker agent can use an adaptive tree search algorithm (Correlated Knowledge Attack Agent - CKA-Agent) to explore the target model's internal correlated knowledge. The agent issues benign queries, uses the model's responses to guide exploration along multiple reasoning paths, and aggregates the collected…

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Bypassing Commercial LLM Guardrails via Harmless Prompt Weaving and Adaptive Tree Search
Evaluated models: Circuit Breaker, Claude 3.5 Haiku, Gemini 2.5 Flash+7 more
  • Circuit Breaker
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemma 2B
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama Guard 3
  • Qwen 3 32B

Guardrail Helpful Mode Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A "Helpful Mode" role-confusion vulnerability exists in specific Large Language Model (LLM) safety guardrails, specifically Nemotron-Safety-8B and Granite-Guardian-3.2-5B. These models, designed to act as binary classifiers (outputting "Safe" or "Unsafe") for content moderation, can be manipulated via contextually framed adversarial prompts (e.g., academic research requests, corporate security scenarios, or roleplay) to abandon their classification objective. Instead of blocking the request…

Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Model Safety Guardrails Against Adversarial Attacks
Evaluated models: Nemotron Safety 8B, Granite Guardian 3.2 5B

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.