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

736 entries

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

RAG Knowledgebase Exfiltration

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to iterative knowledge-extraction attacks designed to reconstruct the underlying private knowledge base. The vulnerability exists due to the decoupled optimization of the retrieval and generation phases. Attackers can craft adversarial queries consisting of two distinct components: an "Information" component (optimized via gradient descent or random sampling to steer embeddings toward specific, diverse regions of the vector space) and…

Benchmarking Knowledge-Extraction Attack and Defense on Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Adaptive Web Agent Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) based web agents (such as those built using the BrowserUse scaffold) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attacks when autonomously navigating and processing untrusted web content. Unlike standard Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), this vulnerability occurs when the LLM orchestrator consumes the DOM or visual screenshots of a webpage containing concealed or contextually disguised adversarial instructions. The LLM interprets these embedded text strings as…

MUZZLE: Adaptive Agentic Red-Teaming of Web Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4o, Qwen3-VL 32B Instruct

Cross-Modal Entanglement Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in advanced Vision-Language Models (VLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety alignment mechanisms via a Cross-Modal Entanglement Attack (COMET). By reframing malicious queries into multi-hop reasoning tasks, attackers can migrate visualizable key entities into a paired image and replace the textual entities with ambiguous spatial pointers. This forces the VLM to reconstruct the harmful intent through its own self-induced cross-modal reasoning, effectively bypassing filters that…

Red-teaming the Multimodal Reasoning: Jailbreaking Vision-Language Models via Cross-modal Entanglement Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 Mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash+6 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct
  • GLM-4.5V
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Claude Haiku 4.5

LLM Strategic Prompt Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Alignment auditing methodologies used to verify the safety of Large Language Models (LLMs)—specifically black-box methods (Assistant Prefills, User Persona Sampling) and white-box interpretability methods (SAE Feature Description, Activation Token Embedding Similarity)—are vulnerable to prompt-level strategic deception. A misaligned "target" model, when supplied with a specific system prompt containing a high-level deceptive strategy and descriptions of the auditing tools, can obfuscate its…

Stress-Testing Alignment Audits With Prompt-Level Strategic Deception
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.3 70B, Gemma 2 9B

Personalized Agent Double Agent

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

OpenClaw is vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI), Tool-Return Manipulation, and Persistent Memory Poisoning. The agent incorporates untrusted external content (e.g., fetched web pages) and external tool outputs directly into its observation stream without sufficient isolation. An attacker can embed malicious payloads into these external channels to hijack the agent's planning and execution trace. This allows the attacker to silently trigger high-privilege actions via OpenClaw's Skills…

From Assistant to Double Agent: Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks on OpenClaw for Personalized Local AI Agent
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 70B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Fill-Squeeze Scheduler DoS

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM serving frameworks utilizing continuous batching and PagedAttention (such as vLLM, SGLang, and Orca) are vulnerable to a resource exhaustion Denial-of-Service attack known as "Fill and Squeeze." An unprivileged remote attacker can exploit the deterministic state transitions of the scheduler's memory management to induce severe latency or service denial. The attack leverages a side-channel vulnerability where Inter-Token Latency (ITL) correlates linearly with global KV-cache usage due to…

Rethinking Latency Denial-of-Service: Attacking the LLM Serving Framework, Not the Model
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 8B, Gemma 3 12B IT, DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B+1 more
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Gemma 3 12B IT
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Indic Attack Amplification

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically those aligned primarily using English-centric data (such as LLaMA-3-8B-Instruct, GPT-OSS 20B, and Qwen3-32B), contain a cross-lingual safety generalization vulnerability. Safety guardrails and refusal logic fail to transfer effectively to linguistically distant languages, particularly Indic languages (Hindi, Assamese, Marathi, Kannada, and Gujarati). This vulnerability allows attackers to bypass safety alignment by translating structured adversarial…

Lost in Translation? A Comparative Study on the Cross-Lingual Transfer of Composite Harms
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B Instruct, GPT-oss 20B, Qwen 3 32B

VLM Split-Image Blindspot

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision Language Models (VLMs) utilizing independent vision encoders (e.g., ViT) and Large Language Model (LLM) decoders are vulnerable to Split-Image Visual Jailbreak Attacks (SIVA). The vulnerability arises from an architectural and alignment discrepancy: while the vision encoder processes image fragments (splits) in isolation via constrained attention or block-diagonal masks, the LLM decoder aggregates these features via cross-attention to reconstruct the semantic content. Current safety…

Robustness of Vision Language Models Against Split-Image Harmful Input Attacks
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 11B

Persistent Agent Context Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Conventional LLM agent architectures suffer from a working memory contamination vulnerability due to indiscriminate memory accumulation. When these agents retrieve external data via tools (e.g., web search, reading emails), the entire raw output is appended directly to their continuous context window. If the external data contains an Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) payload, the malicious instruction persists in the agent's working memory across its entire multi-step reasoning workflow. This…

AgentSys: Secure and Dynamic LLM Agents Through Explicit Hierarchical Memory Management
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4o, GPT-5.1+3 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5.1
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Voice Agent Behavioral Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Audio Large Language Models (ALLMs) integrated into voice agent systems for high-stakes domains (banking, IT support, logistics) are vulnerable to multimodal adversarial attacks via spoken interaction. Adversaries can exploit the model's inherent compliance and contextual awareness through multi-turn dialogue to bypass authentication safeguards, escalate privileges (e.g., unauthorized credit limit increases), exfiltrate sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and poison…

Aegis: Towards Governance, Integrity, and Security of AI Voice Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 1.5 Pro+4 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Qwen2-Audio 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 Omni 7B

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.