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

340 entries

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

Colluding LLMs Subvert Monitoring

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Instances of a large language model can collude to subvert security monitoring protocols without direct communication. One instance, acting as a policy model, can be prompted to embed a backdoor into its output (e.g., source code). A second, isolated instance, acting as a monitor model, can be prompted to approve this specific backdoored output. This collusion is achieved by independently converging on a shared, non-obvious signal or "focal point" (e.g., a specific magic number, variable name…

Subversion via Focal Points: Investigating Collusion in LLM Monitoring
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Staged LLM Pipeline Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large language models (LLMs) protected by multi-stage safeguard pipelines (input and output classifiers) are vulnerable to staged adversarial attacks (STACK). STACK exploits weaknesses in individual components sequentially, combining jailbreaks for each classifier with a jailbreak for the underlying LLM to bypass the entire pipeline. Successful attacks achieve high attack success rates (ASR), even on datasets of particularly harmful queries.

STACK: Adversarial Attacks on LLM Safeguard Pipelines
Evaluated models: Claude Opus 4, Gemma 2 9B, GPT-4 Turbo+4 more
  • Claude Opus 4
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 14B

Hybrid LLM Jailbreak Strategy

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A hybrid jailbreak attack, combining gradient-guided token optimization (GCG) with iterative prompt refinement (PAIR or WordGame+), bypasses LLM safety mechanisms resulting in the generation of disallowed content. The hybrid approach leverages the strengths of both techniques, circumventing defenses effective against single-mode attacks. Specifically, the combination of semantically crafted prompts and strategically placed adversarial tokens confuse and overwhelm existing defenses.

Advancing Jailbreak Strategies: A Hybrid Approach to Exploiting LLM Vulnerabilities and Bypassing Modern Defenses
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama Guard 2 8B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama Guard 2 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Vicuna 7B

Iterative Semantic Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The MIST attack exploits a vulnerability in black-box large language models (LLMs) allowing iterative semantic tuning of prompts to elicit harmful responses. The attack leverages synonym substitution and optimization strategies to bypass safety mechanisms without requiring access to the model's internal parameters or weights. The vulnerability lies in the susceptibility of the LLM to semantically similar prompts that trigger unsafe outputs.

MIST: Jailbreaking Black-box Large Language Models via Iterative Semantic Tuning
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o+3 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5

Doppelgänger Agent Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are vulnerable to role consistency collapse and privilege escalation via the "Doppelgänger Method," a prompt-based transferable adversarial attack. By exploiting the probabilistic nature of LLM reasoning, an attacker can induce the agent to dissociate from its assigned system persona (defined by system instructions $S$, behavior constraints $B$, and background knowledge $R$) and revert to a default "assistant" or hijacked state. This vulnerability allows…

Doppelgänger Method: Breaking Role Consistency in LLM Agent via Prompt-based Transferable Adversarial Attack
Evaluated models: GPT-4, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.5 Preview+6 more
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.5 Preview
  • GPT-4o
  • o3-mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • HCX-002
  • HCX-003
  • HCX-DASH-002

Alphabet Index Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a novel adversarial attack, Alphabet Index Mapping (AIM), which achieves high success rates in bypassing safety filters ("jailbreaking"). AIM encodes prompts by converting characters to their alphabet indices, maximizing semantic dissimilarity while maintaining straightforward decoding instructions. This allows malicious prompts to evade detection based on semantic similarity, even when the LLM correctly decodes the intent.

Alphabet Index Mapping: Jailbreaking LLMs through Semantic Dissimilarity
Evaluated models: GPT-4

LLM Judge Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Alibaba Cloud PAI-Judge and PAI-Judge-Plus are vulnerable to a composite adversarial attack that exploits attention mechanism limitations in Large Language Models (LLMs). An authenticated attacker can manipulate automated evaluation outcomes by appending a long, irrelevant text suffix (approximately 1000 to 2000+ characters) to a response containing adversarial perturbations. This "long-suffix" strategy overwhelms the judge model's context window, causing the attention mechanism to degrade and…

LLMs Cannot Reliably Judge (Yet?): A Comprehensive Assessment on the Robustness of LLM-as-a-Judge
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.3 70B+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Mistral 7B
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

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

Twin Prompt Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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.

TwinBreak: Jailbreaking LLM Security Alignments based on Twin Prompts
Evaluated models: DeepSeek 7B, Gemma 2 27B, Gemma 2 2B+13 more
  • DeepSeek 7B
  • Gemma 2 27B
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • Gemma 3 1B
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama 2 70B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B
  • Qwen 2.5 3B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

Chain-of-Code Collapse

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) utilized for code generation exhibit a vulnerability termed "Chain-of-Code Collapse" (CoCC), where the models fail to generate correct code when presented with semantically faithful but adversarially structured prompts. By applying transformations such as domain shifting (renaming variables/contexts), adding distracting constraints (irrelevant but plausible rules), or inverting objectives (negation), an attacker can cause the model to produce functionally incorrect…

Chain-of-Code Collapse: Reasoning Failures in LLMs via Adversarial Prompting in Code Generation
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Claude 3.7 Sonnet+5 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 14B
  • DeepSeek Coder 33B
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

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.