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

133 entries

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

Embodied Agent Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) used in Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) systems are vulnerable to jailbreak attacks. Adversarially crafted natural language instructions, even when disguised within seemingly benign prompts, can bypass safety mechanisms and cause the VLN agent to perform unintended or harmful actions in both simulated and real-world environments. The attacks exploit the MLLM's ability to follow instructions without sufficient consideration of the consequences of…

BadNAVer: Exploring Jailbreak Attacks On Vision-and-Language Navigation
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini+3 more
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • InternVL3 8B
  • LLaVA 1.6 Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct

Chained Guardrail Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating in stateful environments (web browsers, operating systems, and tool-use contexts) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection and multi-modal adversarial attacks. These vulnerabilities arise when agents process untrusted environmental observations—such as web accessibility trees, screen screenshots, or database query results—that contain concealed malicious instructions. Specifically, attackers can embed prompt injections into HTML accessibility…

DoomArena: A Framework for Testing AI Agents Against Evolving Security Threats
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Claude 3.5 Sonnet+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Llama Guard

Multi-Agent Prompt Permutation Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems allows for a permutation-invariant adversarial prompt attack. By strategically partitioning adversarial prompts and routing them through a network topology, an attacker can bypass distributed safety mechanisms, even those with token bandwidth limitations and asynchronous message delivery. The attack optimizes prompt propagation as a maximum-flow minimum-cost problem, maximizing success while minimizing detection.

Agents Under Siege: Breaking Pragmatic Multi-Agent LLM Systems with Optimized Prompt Attacks
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1 Distill, Gemma 2 9B, Llama 2 7B+7 more
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama Guard
  • Llama Guard 2 8B
  • Llama Guard 3 1B
  • Llama Guard 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Prompt Guard

Agent System Orchestration Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-agent systems (MAS) utilizing Large Language Model (LLM) orchestration are vulnerable to control-flow hijacking via indirect prompt injection, leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE). This vulnerability arises when a sub-agent (e.g., a file surfer or web surfer) processes untrusted input containing adversarial metadata, such as simulated error messages or administrative instructions. The sub-agent faithfully reproduces this adversarial content in its report to the orchestrator agent. The…

Multi-agent systems execute arbitrary malicious code
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 1.5 Pro+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash

Autonomous Multi-Turn LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to multi-turn adversarial attacks that exploit incremental policy erosion. The attacker uses a breadth-first search strategy to generate multiple prompts at each turn, leveraging partial compliance from previous responses to gradually escalate the conversation towards eliciting disallowed outputs. Minor concessions accumulate, ultimately leading to complete circumvention of safety measures.

Siege: Autonomous Multi-Turn Jailbreaking of Large Language Models with Tree Search
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, Llama 3.1 70B

Image-Text Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to coupled cross-modal jailbreak attacks that combine continuous visual perturbations with discrete textual manipulations. Because standard alignment and single-modality defenses (such as text-only safety tuning or isolated vision-encoder adversarial training) fail to secure the cross-modal interaction, attackers can simultaneously apply gradient-based noise (e.g., PGD) to input images and adversarial suffixes (e.g., GCG) to text prompts…

E2AT: Multimodal Jailbreak Defense via Dynamic Joint Optimization for Multimodal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, Bunny 1.0 4B, Mplug-owl2

Agent Reasoning Hijacking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) agents that allows attackers to manipulate the agent's reasoning process through the insertion of strategically placed adversarial strings. This allows attackers to induce the agent to perform unintended malicious actions or invoke specific malicious tools, even when the initial prompt or instruction is benign. The attack exploits the agent's reliance on chain-of-thought reasoning and dynamically optimizes the adversarial string to maximize…

UDora: A Unified Red Teaming Framework against LLM Agents by Dynamically Hijacking Their Own Reasoning
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, GPT-4o+2 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B

Flowchart-based LVLM Jailbreak Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

FC-Attack leverages automatically generated flowcharts containing step-by-step descriptions derived or rephrased from harmful queries, combined with a benign textual prompt, to jailbreak Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). The vulnerability lies in the model's susceptibility to visual prompts containing harmful information within the flowcharts, thus bypassing safety alignment mechanisms.

FC-Attack: Jailbreaking Large Vision-Language Models via Auto-Generated Flowcharts
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620, Gemini 1.5 Flash, GPT-4o 2024-08-06+4 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • GPT-4o 2024-08-06
  • GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18
  • InternVL2.5 8B
  • LLaVA NeXT 8B
  • Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct

Adaptive LLM Agent Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM agents utilizing external tools are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI) attacks. Attackers can embed malicious instructions into the external data accessed by the agent, manipulating its behavior even when defenses against direct prompt injection are in place. Adaptive attacks, which modify the injected payload based on the specific defense mechanism, consistently bypass existing defenses with a success rate exceeding 50%.

Adaptive Attacks Break Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Agents
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Vicuna 7B

Agent Pipeline Simple Hacks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Commercial LLM-powered agents utilizing autonomous web access, memory modules, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection and environmental manipulation. Attackers can embed malicious instructions into external data sources trusted by the agent (such as Reddit posts, public databases, or ArXiv papers). When the agent autonomously retrieves and processes this content during task execution, it executes the embedded malicious commands. This vulnerability…

Commercial llm agents are already vulnerable to simple yet dangerous attacks
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.