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

556 entries

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

Drunk Language Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) where inducing "drunk language" behavior—simulating the text of an intoxicated human—bypasses safety guardrails and contextual privacy protections. Attackers can exploit this anthropomorphic flaw through inference-time persona prompting or lightweight post-training (causal fine-tuning or reinforcement learning on drunk text corpora). By forcing the model to adopt a stylistic and semantic framework associated with impaired human…

In Vino Veritas and Vulnerabilities: Examining LLM Safety via Drunk Language Inducement
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4o+3 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B

MLLM Chart Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Code-generation Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to directed misuse for the generation of misleading data visualizations. This vulnerability, described as the "ChartAttack" framework, allows an attacker to prompt the model to manipulate chart annotation code (e.g., JSON specifications for Matplotlib or Vega-Lite) to apply specific "misleaders"—design choices that distort data interpretation without altering the underlying data values. By…

ChartAttack: Testing the Vulnerability of LLMs to Malicious Prompting in Chart Generation
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 14B, LLaVA 7B, Phi-3

Benign Praise Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) Fine-tuning-as-a-Service (FaaS) platforms that allows attackers to bypass safety alignment and moderation filters via a "TrojanPraise" benign fine-tuning attack. The attack exploits the decoupling of an LLM's internal representation of harmful queries into "knowledge" (semantic understanding) and "attitude" (safety refusal). The attacker constructs a fine-tuning dataset containing three specific components: (1) a novel nonsense word (e.g…

TrojanPraise: Jailbreak LLMs via Benign Fine-Tuning
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B+4 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 3B

Dangerous Medical Faithfulness

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) where in-context information (e.g., provided via Retrieval-Augmented Generation) completely overrides parametric safety guardrails when processing counterfactual or adversarial medical evidence. When a prompt contains fabricated clinical context asserting the medical efficacy of toxic substances, illicit drugs, or nonsensical items, the LLM suppresses its internal knowledge of the substance's toxicity. Internal representation…

Faithfulness vs. Safety: Evaluating LLM Behavior Under Counterfactual Medical Evidence
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5 Mini, HuatuoGPT-o1-7B+6 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • HuatuoGPT-o1-7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
  • Llama 4 Maverick 17B Instruct
  • OLMo 3 7B Instruct
  • OLMo 3 7B Think
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Helpful Agent Default Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the task-planning and execution logic of Large Language Model (LLM) agents, specifically within trip-planning and web-use agents. The vulnerability, identified as a "User-Mediated Attack," occurs because agents prioritize task completion and "helpfulness" over safety verification when processing content provided by the user. When a benign user forwards untrusted external content (e.g., promotional text containing phishing links or malicious instructions) to the agent…

Too Helpful to Be Safe: User-Mediated Attacks on Planning and Web-Use Agents
Evaluated models: Not reported

Spatial Layout Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) and their associated output guardrails (e.g., Llama Guard, OpenAI Moderation API) rely on autoregressive, token-by-token processing, which interprets text as a one-dimensional sequence. A vulnerability exists wherein harmful content can bypass these safety filters by exploiting the discrepancy between 1D token serialization and 2D visual rendering. By redistributing tokens across different rows, columns, or diagonals (SpatialJB), attackers can induce the model to…

SpatialJB: How Text Distribution Art Becomes the" Jailbreak Key" for LLM Guardrails
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Grok 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro+3 more
  • GPT-4
  • Grok 4
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek V3

LLM False Refusal Bias

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a False Refusal vulnerability during legitimate hate speech detoxification tasks (text style transfer). Safety alignment mechanisms fail to contextually distinguish between a benign instruction to "detoxify" or "rewrite" harmful content and the generation of harmful content itself. This results in a denial of service where the model refuses to process the input. This vulnerability is not uniformly distributed; it is statistically biased to…

Analyzing Bias in False Refusal Behavior of Large Language Models for Hate Speech Detoxification
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B+4 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • Mixtral 8x7B

Macaronic T2I Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Text-to-Image (T2I) models and their associated safety filters are vulnerable to MacPrompt, a black-box jailbreak technique that exploits cross-lingual embedding alignments. Attackers can bypass input text filters, latent representation filters, and model-level concept removal defenses by replacing sensitive keywords with "macaronic" substitutes. These substitutes are constructed by extracting and recombining character-level substrings from translations of the target word across multiple…

MacPrompt: Maraconic-guided Jailbreak against Text-to-Image Models
Evaluated models: DALL-E, Stable Diffusion

Adversarial Prompts Defeat Code Defenses

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

State-of-the-art secure code generation methods (Sven, SafeCoder, and PromSec) are vulnerable to adversarial prompt perturbations during inference, allowing for the bypass of security alignment mechanisms. The vulnerability stems from the models' reliance on surface-level textual pattern matching rather than semantic security reasoning. By employing simple prompt manipulations—such as Cue Inversion (flipping security directives), Naturalness Reframing (rewriting comments as novice questions)…

How Secure is Secure Code Generation? Adversarial Prompts Put LLM Defenses to the Test
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Mistral 7B

Adaptive Tool-Disguised Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) supporting function calling (tool use) are vulnerable to a jailbreak attack known as iMIST (interactive Multi-step Progressive Tool-disguised Jailbreak Attack). The vulnerability stems from a disparity in alignment training: while models are heavily aligned to refuse harmful natural language generation, they lack sufficient alignment regarding the generation of harmful content within structured data (JSON) used for tool parameters.

Jailbreaking Large Language Models through Iterative Tool-Disguised Attacks via Reinforcement Learning
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, DeepSeek-V3 671B

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.