Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed 9/9/2026

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1123 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

468 entries

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

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 2/22/2026

A cryptographic weakness exists in the privacy assumptions of vector embeddings used in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems and Vector Databases. The vulnerability, designated "Zero2Text," allows an unauthenticated attacker to reconstruct raw text from captured vector embeddings without access to the victim model's parameters, gradients, or training data. Unlike prior embedding inversion attacks that require training large decoders on domain-specific datasets, this vulnerability…

Zero2Text: Zero-Training Cross-Domain Inversion Attacks on Textual Embeddings
Evaluated models: Not reported

Source: arXiv

Published 1/29/2026
Analyzed 7/20/2026

The paper reports a black-box jailbreak evaluation in which a ReAct-style loop adaptively rewrites unsafe text prompts and selectively applies blur, DCT filtering, or recoloring to image regions identified as safety-sensitive. The combined cross-modal strategy is intended to make harmful image-text requests appear less objectionable to a vision-language model while preserving enough semantics to elicit an answer. This is a specific, security-relevant evaluation, although the reported results…

Jailbreaks on Vision Language Model via Multimodal Reasoning
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.0 Flash

Source: arXiv

Published 1/22/2026
Analyzed 7/20/2026

The paper describes a specific black-box jailbreak evaluation, BVS, in which fragmented visual content is mixed with neutral imagery and paired with reconstruction-oriented text so harmful intent is only recomposed during multimodal reasoning. The authors report that this can bypass input and output safety assumptions in image-generating MLLMs. A safe defensive reproduction should use synthetic, non-harmful stand-ins for prohibited concepts, test whether fragmented cross-modal inputs are…

Beyond Visual Safety: Jailbreaking Multimodal Large Language Models for Harmful Image Generation via Semantic-Agnostic Inputs
Evaluated models: GPT-5, Gemini 1.5 Flash

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 2/22/2026

Conversational Large Language Model (LLM) agents integrated with privileged data sources (e.g., medical records, organizational emails) are vulnerable to contextually inappropriate information disclosure due to failures in enforcing Contextual Integrity (CI) norms. Standard semantic input/output filters and generic safety guardrails (e.g., Llama Guard) fail to detect "mosaic attacks" and multi-turn conversational manipulation. In these attacks, adversaries decompose a malicious query into a…

NeuroFilter: Privacy Guardrails for Conversational LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 7B +3 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 2/22/2026

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

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 2/22/2026

Multi-turn Large Language Model (LLM) agents deployed in safety-critical domains (specifically automotive assistants) exhibit a "completion-compliance tension" vulnerability. When agents encounter missing tools, incomplete environment observations, or ambiguous user requests, they prioritize satisfying the user's intent over adhering to defined domain safety policies. This results in two distinct failure modes: (1) Premature Action Execution, where agents execute physical state changes based…

CAR-bench: Evaluating the Consistency and Limit-Awareness of LLM Agents under Real-World Uncertainty
Evaluated models: GPT-5, GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.5 +7 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 3/9/2026

Autonomous Incident Response (IR) and Security Operations Center (SOC) agents utilizing frontier LLMs are vulnerable to adversarial over-triggering via contextualized prompt injections. When processing untrusted artifacts (such as SQLite logs, alerts, or phishing emails) in a dual-control environment, these agents exhibit a severe calibration failure: they lack action restraint and execute disruptive containment tools prematurely. Attackers can exploit this by embedding T2 (contextualized…

OpenSec: Measuring Incident Response Agent Calibration Under Adversarial Evidence
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.5, DeepSeek V3.2 +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 2/21/2026

Large Language Models (LLMs) hosted on inference servers are vulnerable to high-speed weight exfiltration attacks due to the inherent compressibility of transformer parameters when decompression constraints are relaxed. Adversaries with compromised server access can utilize aggressive lossy compression techniques—specifically additive quantization combined with k-means clustering—to reduce model size by factors of 16x to 100x (e.g., <1 bit per parameter). Unlike standard quantization for…

Aggressive Compression Enables LLM Weight Theft
Evaluated models: Qwen 2 1.5B, Qwen 2 7B, Qwen 2.5 0.5B +2 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 3/8/2026

A data poisoning vulnerability in safety-aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to disrupt model fine-tuning via "Disclaimer Injection." By appending or prepending short, legal-style safety or liability disclaimers to ordinary training data, an attacker can reliably trigger the model's internal alignment mechanisms. This forces the model to route the training inputs through specialized safety and refusal pathways rather than standard task-learning layers. Consequently, the model…

Rendering Data Unlearnable by Exploiting LLM Alignment Mechanisms
Evaluated models: GPT-5.1, Llama 3 8B

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 2/22/2026

Transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs) contain a privacy vulnerability within their self-attention mechanisms that allows for Membership Inference Attacks (MIA). Pre-training induces distinct, highly structured, and concentrated attention patterns for data samples included in the training set, differentiating them from non-member samples which exhibit noisier, less consistent attention flows. An attacker with white-box access to the model parameters (specifically attention weight…

AttenMIA: LLM Membership Inference Attack through Attention Signals
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 2 13B, Pythia 1.4B +11 more

Source: arXiv

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.