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.

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

Adversarial ROI Privacy Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) utilizing Transformer-based visual encoders (specifically CLIP and EVA-CLIP variants) are vulnerable to a targeted adversarial attack dubbed "VIP" (Visual Information Protection). This vulnerability allows an attacker to manipulate the model's internal attention mechanism to create a "blind spot" within a specific Region of Interest (ROI) of an input image. By optimizing an additive image perturbation ($\delta$), the attack minimizes the attention weights and…

VIP: Visual Information Protection through Adversarial Attacks on Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: InstructBLIP, Vicuna 7B

Forged Assistant Message Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability termed "Trojan Horse Prompting" exists in conversational multimodal models, specifically demonstrated on Google’s Gemini-2.0-flash-preview-image-generation. The vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass safety alignment mechanisms (RLHF and SFT) by manipulating the structural protocol of the conversational API. Unlike standard jailbreaks that manipulate the user prompt, this attack exploits "Asymmetric Safety Alignment" by forging a conversational history where the role is…

Trojan Horse Prompting: Jailbreaking Conversational Multimodal Models by Forging Assistant Message
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.0 Flash Preview Image Generation

Visual Jailbreak via Context Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to visual contextual attacks, where carefully crafted images and accompanying text prompts can bypass safety mechanisms and elicit harmful responses. The vulnerability stems from the MLLM's ability to integrate visual and textual context to generate outputs, allowing attackers to create realistic scenarios that subvert safety filters. Specifically, the attack leverages image-driven context injection to construct deceptive multi-turn…

Visual Contextual Attack: Jailbreaking MLLMs with Image-Driven Context Injection
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini+3 more
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • InternVL 2.5 78B
  • LLaVA 7B Chat
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct

Benign LLM Secondary Risks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to "Secondary Risks," a class of non-adversarial failures where the model generates harmful, misleading, or unsafe outputs in response to benign, non-malicious user prompts. Unlike jailbreaks which require adversarial inputs, secondary risks arise from imperfect generalization and alignment failures during standard interactions. This vulnerability manifests primarily in two primitives: 1. Excessive…

Exploring the Secondary Risks of Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4 Turbo+9 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • Gemini 2.0 Pro
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B
  • Phi-4
  • Gemma 2 27B IT
  • LLaVA OneVision Qwen2 72B
  • Pixtral 12B
  • MiniCPM-o 2.6

JailFlip Implicit Harm

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the safety alignment mechanisms of Large Language Models (LLMs) (including GPT-4, Claude 3, Gemini, and Qwen families) leading to "Implicit Harm." Unlike traditional jailbreaks that use overtly harmful queries, this vulnerability allows remote attackers to coerce the model into providing factually incorrect, plausible, and dangerous responses to benign-looking inputs. By employing "JailFlip" techniques—specifically constructed affirmative-type or denial-type queries…

Beyond Jailbreaks: Revealing Stealthier and Broader LLM Security Risks Stemming from Alignment Failures
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 Mini, GPT-4o+3 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Qwen Plus
  • Qwen Turbo

Pretraining Modality Gap Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) that utilize a projection layer (adapter) to bridge a vision encoder and a Large Language Model (LLM) contain a vulnerability stemming from the "Modality Gap"—a distributional distance between image and text token embeddings. This gap allows the visual modality to bypass the safety alignment (RLHF/instruction tuning) of the backbone LLM. Attackers can trigger harmful, toxic, or illegal responses to queries that would be refused in text-only contexts by…

Bootstrapping LLM Robustness for VLM Safety via Reducing the Pretraining Modality Gap
Evaluated models: LLaVA 7B, Vicuna 7B

VLM Navigation Object Fusion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Vision-Language Model (VLM) perception module in Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) agents is vulnerable to adversarial 3D object injection via the Adversarial Object Fusion (AdvOF) framework. An attacker can generate physically plausible 3D objects with adversarial perturbations capable of deceiving the agent's VLM across multiple viewing angles and distances. The vulnerability exists due to a misalignment between 3D physical manipulations and the agent's 2D image perception, combined…

Disrupting Vision-Language Model-Driven Navigation Services via Adversarial Object Fusion
Evaluated models: Not reported

Hybrid Agent Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Computer-Use Agents (CUAs) powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) operating in hybrid Web-OS environments are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection. Attackers can embed malicious natural language or code instructions within legitimate web content (e.g., social media forums, chat applications, shared cloud documents) that the agent processes during benign task execution. Due to the agent's inability to distinguish between trusted user instructions and untrusted environmental data, the CUA…

RedTeamCUA: Realistic Adversarial Testing of Computer-Use Agents in Hybrid Web-OS Environments
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4o

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.