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

131 entries

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

Semantic Prompt Distortion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Adaptive Greedy Binary Search (AGBS) framework exposes a vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs) regarding their susceptibility to semantic-preserving adversarial attacks. The vulnerability is exploited through a hierarchical decomposition strategy that identifies key semantic units (clauses and keywords) within a prompt. AGBS utilizes a dynamic threshold mechanism to adjust semantic similarity bounds in real-time during a beam search process, replacing tokens with candidates that…

Semantic-Preserving Prompt Hijacking: A Black-Box Adversarial Attack on Auto-Prompt Optimization
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o+7 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Llama 3.2 3B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • Gemma 2 27B

Nonsensical CoT Reasoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) utilizing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting are vulnerable to input perturbations that decouple intermediate reasoning from the final answer. An attacker can generate adversarial examples using gradient-based optimization (targeting specific loss functions that maximize reasoning divergence while minimizing answer loss) to induce "Right Answer, Wrong Reasoning" behaviors. This vulnerability manifests through two primary attack vectors: 1. Token-level perturbations…

Robust Answers, Fragile Logic: Probing the Decoupling Hypothesis in LLM Reasoning
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B, Zephyr 7B Beta+4 more
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Zephyr 7B Beta
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo

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

On-Device LLM Hijacking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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

Judge LLM Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Improper Input Validation in Large Language Model (LLM) systems configured as automated evaluators ("LLM-as-a-judge") allows remote attackers to manipulate evaluation scores and comparative verdicts via adversarial prompt injection. The vulnerability arises when the model processes untrusted input containing linguistic masquerading, context separators, and disruptor commands (e.g., "Basic Injection", "Contextual Misdirection", and "Adaptive Search-Based Attack"). Successful exploitation…

Adversarial Attacks on LLM-as-a-Judge Systems: Insights from Prompt Injections
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Claude 3 Opus, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct+2 more
  • GPT-4
  • Claude 3 Opus
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Gemma 3 4B IT
  • Gemma 3 27B IT

Generative Reward Hacking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

State-of-the-art Reward Models (RMs) utilized in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) exhibit poor out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization, making them susceptible to adversarial inputs. These models fail to reliably assess prompt-response pairs that diverge from their training distribution, assigning high reward scores to low-quality, nonsensical, or syntactically incorrect responses. This vulnerability allows for "reward hacking," where a policy model optimizes for unintended…

Adversarial training of reward models
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.3 70B, DeepSeek R1+1 more
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Gemma 2 27B

Confident Persuasion Override

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) decision-making capabilities described as "Rhetorical Persuasion Override." When an LLM is deployed as a judge or evaluator in a single-turn, multi-agent debate framework, it systematically fails to distinguish factual truth from confidently presented misinformation. An adversarial agent can coerce the evaluator into endorsing a known falsehood from the TruthfulQA dataset by employing specific rhetorical strategies—namely, high confidence…

When persuasion overrides truth in multi-agent llm debates: Introducing a confidence-weighted persuasion override rate (cw-por)
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 3B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 2.5 14B+1 more
  • Llama 3.2 3B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Phi-4 14B

Cross-Batch Interference

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed using "Batch Prompting" strategies—where multiple distinct user queries are concatenated and processed in a single inference pass to reduce computational costs—are vulnerable to Cross-Query Prompt Injection. When a batch contains a mixture of benign queries and a single malicious query, the instructions within the malicious query (e.g., "apply this rule to every answer") bleed over the context window. This causes the model to apply the adversary's…

Efficient but Vulnerable: Benchmarking and Defending LLM Batch Prompting Attack
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Claude 3.5 Sonnet+4 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • DeepSeek R1

Life-Cycle Router Misrouting

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Predictive Large Language Model (LLM) routers, specifically those utilizing Deep Neural Network (DNN) and Matrix Factorization (MF) architectures, are vulnerable to adversarial manipulation and backdoor poisoning. These routers are designed to optimize cost and latency by dynamically directing simple queries to "weak" (cheap) models and complex queries to "strong" (expensive) models. Attackers can exploit this mechanism in two ways: 1. Inference-time Attacks: By appending specific adversarial…

Life-Cycle Routing Vulnerabilities of LLM Router
Evaluated models: Not reported

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.