Language Model Security Database

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Transformer-based architectures, are vulnerable to an attention hijacking attack via optimized adversarial suffixes. The vulnerability resides in the shallow information flow mechanism of the attention layer, where specific token sequences (adversarial suffixes) can exert irregular and extreme dominance over the internal representation of the final chat template tokens immediately preceding generation. This "hijacking" suppresses the representation of…

Multiple Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemma-2 27B, Gemma-3, and Mistral-Small-24B, exhibit a vulnerability where safety guardrails against demographic bias are bypassed through realistic contextual prompting. While prompt-based mitigations effectively suppress bias in simplified, controlled benchmarks, the introduction of realistic hiring contexts—specifically the combination of company culture descriptions (sourced from public career…

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…

A white-box vulnerability allows attackers with full model access to bypass LLM safety alignments by identifying and pruning parameters responsible for rejecting harmful prompts. The attack leverages a novel "twin prompt" technique to differentiate safety-related parameters from those essential for model utility, performing fine-grained pruning with minimal impact on overall model functionality.

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…

Safety alignment degradation occurs in Large Language Models (LLMs) such as Llama-2, Llama-3, and Qwen-2 when subjected to Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) or Continual Pre-Training (CPT) on telecommunications domain datasets (TeleQnA, TeleData, TSpecLLM). The vulnerability arises because benign telecom data—characterized by structured tabular entries, long standardization reports, and complex mathematical formulas—shares gradient update directions with harmful data types. This results in…

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…

A vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs) allows adversarial prompt distillation from a large language model (LLM) to a smaller language model (SLM), enabling efficient and stealthy jailbreak attacks. The attack leverages knowledge distillation techniques, reinforcement learning, and dynamic temperature control to transfer the LLM's ability to bypass safety mechanisms to a smaller, more easily deployable SLM. This allows for lower computational cost attacks with a potentially high…

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) contain a vulnerability in their multimodal fusion layers where safety-relevant information is linearly separable in the latent space. This allows for a "JailBound" attack, which exploits the implicit internal safety decision boundary. The attack proceeds in two stages: (1) Safety Boundary Probing, where attackers approximate the internal decision hyperplane by training layer-wise logistic regression classifiers on the fusion representations of safe versus unsafe…

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Llama-2-7B-Chat and Qwen2.5-Instruct (1.5B and 3B), contain a vulnerability in their post-training safety alignment mechanisms identified as "Refusal Direction Abliteration." The safety alignment in these models creates distinct, isolated neural pathways (a single latent direction in the residual stream) responsible for refusal behavior. An attacker can identify this specific direction by computing the difference in mean activations between harmful…