Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed 9/9/2026

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1123 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

126 entries

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

Published 2/1/2025
Analyzed 3/19/2025

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

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

Large Language Model (LLM) watermarking schemes based on n-gram probability biases (specifically KGW, SynthID-Text, MinHash, and SkipHash) are vulnerable to adversarial removal during Knowledge Distillation. When a student model is trained on the output of a watermarked teacher model, it inherits the watermark's statistical biases ("radioactivity"). An attacker can exploit this inheritance by comparing the student model's output token probabilities against a base model to extract the…

Can LLM Watermarks Robustly Prevent Unauthorized Knowledge Distillation?
Evaluated models: GLM 4 9B Chat, Llama 7B, Llama 3.2 1B

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2025
Analyzed 4/12/2025

Large Language Models (LLMs) trained with safety fine-tuning techniques are vulnerable to multi-dimensional evasion attacks. Safety-aligned behavior, such as refusing harmful queries, is controlled not by a single direction in activation space, but by a subspace of interacting directions. Manipulating non-dominant directions, which represent distinct jailbreak patterns or indirect features, can suppress the dominant direction responsible for refusal, thereby bypassing learned safety…

The Hidden Dimensions of LLM Alignment: A Multi-Dimensional Safety Analysis
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Llama 3.1 405B Instruct, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct +2 more

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

Standard Large Language Model (LLM) unlearning techniques, specifically Negative Preference Optimization (NPO), Gradient Difference (GradDiff), and Representation Misdirection for Unlearning (RMU), fail to sufficiently flatten the loss landscape surrounding the "forgotten" weights. This sharp loss landscape allows for a "Relearning Attack," wherein an attacker can fully restore the unlearned capabilities (such as hazardous knowledge, sensitive data, or copyrighted material) by performing…

Towards llm unlearning resilient to relearning attacks: A sharpness-aware minimization perspective and beyond
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2025
Analyzed 12/9/2025

State-of-the-art machine unlearning and safety fine-tuning methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) fail to robustly remove hazardous capabilities or refusal mechanisms from model weights. While these methods suppress model outputs during standard input-output interactions, the underlying capabilities remain latent in the parameter space. An attacker with access to model weights (e.g., via open releases or leaked weights) can restore "unlearned" knowledge (such as dual-use biology hazards) or…

Model tampering attacks enable more rigorous evaluations of llm capabilities
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2025
Analyzed 3/19/2025

The Virus attack method enables attackers to bypass guardrail moderation on fine-tuning data, leading to a significant degradation of safety alignment in large language models (LLMs). This is achieved through a dual-objective data optimization strategy that crafts harmful data undetectable by the guardrail while maximizing their effectiveness in compromising the victim model's safety.

Virus: Harmful Fine-tuning Attack for Large Language Models Bypassing Guardrail Moderation
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Llama Guard 2

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically instruction-following models using standard refusal training and adversarial training (such as Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Mistral-7B-V0.2), contain a vulnerability related to safety alignment bypass. The vulnerability arises from the models' inability to generalize safety reasoning to Out-Of-Distribution (OOD) inputs and scenarios involving competing objectives. Attackers can exploit this by employing linguistic manipulation (slang, uncommon dialects…

Enhancing Model Defense Against Jailbreaks with Proactive Safety Reasoning
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Mistral 7B Instruct v0.2

Source: arXiv

Published 12/1/2024
Analyzed 3/19/2025

A vulnerability in LLM-based agents, dubbed AI Agent Injection (AI²), allows attackers to hijack the agent's actions by manipulating the agent's memory retrieval mechanism. The attack involves two main steps: (1) Stealing action-aware knowledge from the agent's memory using crafted adversarial queries targeting the retriever module and (2) Generating Trojan prompts consisting of a Trojan string and hijacking instructions. The Trojan string is designed to manipulate the retriever into…

Towards Action Hijacking of Large Language Model-based Agent
Evaluated models: Alpaca, BERT, GPT-3 +3 more

Source: arXiv

Published 12/1/2024
Analyzed 12/29/2024

Large Language Models (LLMs) trained with safety fine-tuning are vulnerable to a novel attack, Response-Guided Question Augmentation (ReG-QA). This attack leverages the asymmetry in safety alignment between question and answer generation. By providing a safety-aligned LLM with toxic answers generated by an unaligned LLM, ReG-QA generates semantically related, yet naturally phrased questions that bypass safety mechanisms and elicit undesirable responses. The attack does not require adversarial…

Does Safety Training of LLMs Generalize to Semantically Related Natural Prompts?
Evaluated models: Gemma 2 27B IT, Gemma 2 9B IT, GPT-3.5 Turbo +6 more

Source: arXiv

Published 11/1/2024
Analyzed 12/29/2024

A vulnerability exists in Federated Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (FedPEFT) systems for large language models (LLMs). Malicious clients can exploit the PEFT mechanism (e.g., LoRA, (IA)³, LayerNorm) to inject adversarial training data, compromising the model's safety alignment even with a small percentage of trainable parameters and a minority of malicious participants. The attack, termed "PEFT-as-an-Attack" (PaaA), circumvents the LLM's safety guardrails, causing it to generate harmful…

PEFT-as-an-Attack! Jailbreaking Language Models during Federated Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct, Phi-3.5 Mini Instruct +1 more

Source: arXiv

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.