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

176 entries

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

Benign LLM Secondary Risks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to "Secondary Risks," a class of non-adversarial failures where the model generates harmful, misleading, or unsafe outputs in response to benign, non-malicious user prompts. Unlike jailbreaks which require adversarial inputs, secondary risks arise from imperfect generalization and alignment failures during standard interactions. This vulnerability manifests primarily in two primitives: 1. Excessive…

Exploring the Secondary Risks of Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4 Turbo+9 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • Gemini 2.0 Pro
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B
  • Phi-4
  • Gemma 2 27B IT
  • LLaVA OneVision Qwen2 72B
  • Pixtral 12B
  • MiniCPM-o 2.6

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

Phantom Token User Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) that utilize byte-stream parsing or structural extraction to process PDF files—specifically the OpenAI GPT and Anthropic Claude families—are vulnerable to adversarial text injection via imperceptible "phantom tokens." This vulnerability exploits the disconnect between how PDF viewers render documents for humans (visual layer) and how LLMs extract text from the PDF operator stream (data layer). Attackers can manipulate standard PDF text-showing operators (TJ and Tj)…

TRAPDOC: Deceiving LLM Users by Injecting Imperceptible Phantom Tokens into Documents
Evaluated models: GPT-4, o4-mini

Pretraining Modality Gap Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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

VLM Navigation Object Fusion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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

Hybrid Agent Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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

VLM Latent Boundary Crossing

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • MiniGPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet

Dynamic Prompt Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

GhostPrompt demonstrates a vulnerability in multimodal safety filters used with text-to-image generative models. The vulnerability allows attackers to bypass these filters by using a dynamic prompt optimization framework that iteratively generates adversarial prompts designed to evade both text-based and image-based safety checks while preserving the original, harmful intent of the prompt. This bypass is achieved through a combination of semantically aligned prompt rewriting and the injection…

GhostPrompt: Jailbreaking Text-to-image Generative Models based on Dynamic Optimization
Evaluated models: DALL-E 3, DeepSeek V3, Flux Schnell+5 more
  • DALL-E 3
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Flux Schnell
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4.1
  • InternVL 2 2B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • ShieldLM 7B

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

Hidden Image Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to implicit jailbreak attacks that leverage least significant bit (LSB) steganography to conceal malicious instructions within images. These instructions are coupled with seemingly benign image-related text prompts, causing the MLLM to execute the hidden malicious instructions. The attack bypasses existing safety mechanisms by exploiting cross-modal reasoning capabilities.

Implicit Jailbreak Attacks via Cross-Modal Information Concealment on Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4.5+3 more
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GPT-4.5
  • GPT-4o
  • InternVL 2 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B 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.