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

183 entries

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

Audio Adversarial Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in SpeechGPT allows bypassing safety filters through adversarial audio prompts crafted by a white-box token-level attack. The attacker leverages knowledge of SpeechGPT's internal speech tokenization process to generate adversarial token sequences, which are then synthesized into audio. These audio prompts elicit restricted or harmful outputs the model would normally suppress. The attack's effectiveness relies on the model's discrete audio token representation and does not…

Audio Jailbreak Attacks: Exposing Vulnerabilities in SpeechGPT in a White-Box Framework
Evaluated models: SpeechGPT

Informed Adversary LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing alignment-based defenses against prompt injection and jailbreak attacks exhibit vulnerability to an informed white-box attack. This attack, termed Checkpoint-GCG, leverages intermediate model checkpoints from the alignment training process to initialize the Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) attack. By using each checkpoint as a stepping stone, Checkpoint-GCG successfully finds adversarial suffixes that bypass defenses achieving significantly higher attack…

Alignment Under Pressure: The Case for Informed Adversaries When Evaluating LLM Defenses
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, Llama 3 8B Instruct+1 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct

SAE Interpretability Illusion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs), utilized for interpreting the internal residual stream activations of Large Language Models (LLMs) into human-understandable concepts, are vulnerable to adversarial input perturbations. By employing gradient-based optimization techniques adapted for SAEs (specifically a generalized Greedy Coordinate Gradient), an attacker can craft inputs via suffix appending or token replacement that manipulate the SAE's latent feature activations. This vulnerability allows for the…

Interpretability Illusions with Sparse Autoencoders: Evaluating Robustness of Concept Representations
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Gemma 2 9B

Fine-Grained Speech LLM Control

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Speech-LLMs Qwen2-Audio (7B-Instruct) and Granite-Speech (3.2-8b) are vulnerable to universal acoustic adversarial attacks. An attacker can optimize a fixed, input-agnostic audio segment (approximately 3.2 seconds in length) via gradient-based optimization on the model's frozen weights. When this adversarial segment is prepended to any arbitrary user speech input, it manipulates the model's latent representation, effectively overriding system prompts and generation behavior. This vulnerability…

Universal Acoustic Adversarial Attacks for Flexible Control of Speech-LLMs
Evaluated models: Qwen 2 7B

SLM Imperceptible Noise Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An adversarial audio perturbation vulnerability exists in open-source Speech Language Models (SLMs), specifically Qwen2-Audio-7B-Instruct and LLaMa-Omni. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to bypass safety alignment mechanisms and jailbreak the model by injecting imperceptible adversarial noise into audio prompts. By utilizing white-box access and Projected Gradient Descent (PGD) optimization, an attacker can manipulate the continuous speech signal to trigger harmful responses (e.g…

SPIRIT: Patching Speech Language Models against Jailbreak Attacks
Evaluated models: Qwen 2 7B

Latent-Space Jailbreak Optimization

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The LARGO attack exploits a vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs) allowing attackers to bypass safety mechanisms through the generation of "stealthy" adversarial prompts. The attack leverages gradient optimization in the LLM's continuous latent space to craft seemingly innocuous natural language suffixes which, when appended to harmful prompts, elicit unsafe responses. The vulnerability stems from the LLM's inability to reliably distinguish between benign and maliciously crafted latent…

LARGO: Latent Adversarial Reflection through Gradient Optimization for Jailbreaking LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 13B Chat, Llama 2 7B Chat, Phi 3 Mini+1 more
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Phi 3 Mini
  • Qwen 2.5 14B

Adversarial Suffix Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically instruction-tuned variants, are vulnerable to safety guardrail bypass via adversarial suffix injection. By appending a specific sequence of tokens—often semantically meaningless characters or carefully crafted distractors—to a malicious query, an attacker can manipulate the model's internal representation to override alignment training (RLHF). This coercion causes the model to affirmatively respond to otherwise refused requests, such as generating…

Adversarial Suffix Filtering: a Defense Pipeline for LLMs
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B+2 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B

Exponentiated Gradient Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in several open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers using exponentiated gradient descent to craft adversarial prompts that cause the models to generate harmful or unintended outputs, effectively "jailbreaking" the safety alignment mechanisms. The attack optimizes a continuous relaxed one-hot encoding of the input tokens, intrinsically satisfying constraints, and avoiding the need for projection techniques used in previous methods.

Adversarial Attack on Large Language Models using Exponentiated Gradient Descent
Evaluated models: Beaver 7B v1.0 Cost, Falcon 7B Instruct, Llama 2 7B Chat+4 more
  • Beaver 7B v1.0 Cost
  • Falcon 7B Instruct
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B v0.3
  • MPT 7B Chat
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5

Targeted Noise Injection Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in several Large Language Models (LLMs) allows bypassing safety mechanisms through targeted noise injection. Explainable AI (XAI) techniques reveal specific layers within the LLM architecture most responsible for content filtering. Injecting noise into these layers or preceding layers circumvents safety restrictions, enabling the generation of harmful or previously prohibited outputs.

XBreaking: Understanding how LLMs security alignment can be broken
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 1B, Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2.5 0.5B+4 more
  • Llama 3.2 1B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 0.5B
  • Qwen 2.5 3B
  • Gemma 2B
  • Gemma 7B
  • Mistral 7B v0.3

LLM Censorship Vector Control

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing safety mechanisms based on supervised fine-tuning and preference alignment exhibit a vulnerability to "steering" attacks. Maliciously crafted prompts or input manipulations can exploit representation vectors within the model to either bypass censorship ("refusal-compliance vector") or suppress the model's reasoning process ("thought suppression vector"), resulting in the generation of unintended or harmful outputs. This vulnerability is demonstrated…

Steering the CensorShip: Uncovering Representation Vectors for LLM" Thought" Control
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B, DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 32B, DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B+8 more
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 32B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B
  • Gemma 2B
  • Gemma 7B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Qwen 1.8B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Qwen 7B
  • Yi 1.5 6B

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.