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

131 entries

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

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 12/9/2025

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

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 12/9/2025

Mobile LLM agents utilizing vision-based screen perception (OCR or Multimodal Large Language Models) are vulnerable to Visual Prompt Injection via malicious GUI overlays. An attacker holding the SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW permission can deploy non-focusable floating windows (using FLAG_NOT_FOCUSABLE) containing adversarial text or fabricated UI elements over legitimate applications. Because the agent captures the entire screen buffer to interpret the device state, it ingests the adversarial overlay…

From Assistants to Adversaries: Exploring the Security Risks of Mobile LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

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

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 12/9/2025

A vulnerability exists in Vision-Language Models (VLLMs) that allows for transferable, targeted adversarial attacks. Attackers can generate adversarial image perturbations using an ensemble of open-source surrogate models (primarily CLIP-based visual encoders) which effectively transfer to proprietary, black-box VLLMs. The attack leverages a specific optimization framework that combines a Visual Contrastive Loss with multiple positive/negative visual examples, rather than relying solely on…

Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Black-Box Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct, Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct +6 more

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

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…

JailBound: Jailbreaking Internal Safety Boundaries of Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, MiniGPT-4 +3 more

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

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

Source: arXiv

Published 4/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

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

Source: arXiv

Published 4/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

LLM-powered GUI agents utilizing screenshot-based interpretation (such as those powered by GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and DeepSeek V3 0324) are vulnerable to Fine-Print Injection (FPI) and Deceptive Default (DD) attacks due to a lack of visual saliency filtering. Unlike human users who prioritize prominent UI elements, these agents perform "indiscriminate parsing," processing low-salience text (e.g., privacy policies, terms of service, footer disclaimers) with the same…

The Obvious Invisible Threat: LLM-Powered GUI Agents' Vulnerability to Fine-Print Injections
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Claude 3.7 Sonnet +2 more

Source: arXiv

Published 4/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

A contextual integrity vulnerability exists in the memory mechanisms of multi-turn Text-to-Image (T2I) generation systems (e.g., those integrating Large Language Models with diffusion models). The vulnerability, dubbed "Inception," arises because safety filters typically operate on a per-turn basis, inspecting only the current input prompt, while the image generation model operates on an aggregated context (memory) of the conversation history. An attacker can exploit this discrepancy by…

Inception: Jailbreak the memory mechanism of text-to-image generation systems
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, GPT-5 +3 more

Source: arXiv

Published 3/1/2025
Analyzed 1/14/2026

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

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.