Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Updated 7/21/2026, database is current

Language Model Security Database

959 research findings · 1077 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

226 entries

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned via techniques such as Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) or Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) contain a vulnerability in how safety features are encoded within the model parameters. The safety-critical information is primarily stored in low-rank subspaces of the weight matrices (specifically, the difference between the base and aligned model weights). These low-rank subspaces are highly sensitive to parameter updates. Consequently…

Lox: Low-rank extrapolation robustifies llm safety against fine-tuning
Affects: GPT-3.5, Llama 2 7B, Mistral 7B

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/30/2025

Multiple Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemma-2 27B, Gemma-3, and Mistral-Small-24B, exhibit a vulnerability where safety guardrails against demographic bias are bypassed through realistic contextual prompting. While prompt-based mitigations effectively suppress bias in simplified, controlled benchmarks, the introduction of realistic hiring contexts—specifically the combination of company culture descriptions (sourced from public career…

Robustly Improving LLM Fairness in Realistic Settings via Interpretability
Affects: GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude Sonnet 4 +5 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/8/2025

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
Affects: GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 Mini, GPT-4o +3 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/9/2025

Alibaba Cloud PAI-Judge and PAI-Judge-Plus are vulnerable to a composite adversarial attack that exploits attention mechanism limitations in Large Language Models (LLMs). An authenticated attacker can manipulate automated evaluation outcomes by appending a long, irrelevant text suffix (approximately 1000 to 2000+ characters) to a response containing adversarial perturbations. This "long-suffix" strategy overwhelms the judge model's context window, causing the attention mechanism to degrade and…

LLMs Cannot Reliably Judge (Yet?): A Comprehensive Assessment on the Robustness of LLM-as-a-Judge
Affects: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.3 70B +3 more

Source: arXiv

Large language models (LLMs) protected by multi-stage safeguard pipelines (input and output classifiers) are vulnerable to staged adversarial attacks (STACK). STACK exploits weaknesses in individual components sequentially, combining jailbreaks for each classifier with a jailbreak for the underlying LLM to bypass the entire pipeline. Successful attacks achieve high attack success rates (ASR), even on datasets of particularly harmful queries.

STACK: Adversarial Attacks on LLM Safeguard Pipelines
Affects: Claude Opus 4, Gemma 2 9B, GPT-4 Turbo +4 more

Source: arXiv

Safety alignment degradation occurs in Large Language Models (LLMs) such as Llama-2, Llama-3, and Qwen-2 when subjected to Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) or Continual Pre-Training (CPT) on telecommunications domain datasets (TeleQnA, TeleData, TSpecLLM). The vulnerability arises because benign telecom data—characterized by structured tabular entries, long standardization reports, and complex mathematical formulas—shares gradient update directions with harmful data types. This results in…

SafeCOMM: What about Safety Alignment in Fine-Tuned Telecom Large Language Models?
Affects: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B, Llama 3.1 8B +2 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 7/14/2025

A white-box vulnerability allows attackers with full model access to bypass LLM safety alignments by identifying and pruning parameters responsible for rejecting harmful prompts. The attack leverages a novel "twin prompt" technique to differentiate safety-related parameters from those essential for model utility, performing fine-grained pruning with minimal impact on overall model functionality.

TwinBreak: Jailbreaking LLM Security Alignments based on Twin Prompts
Affects: DeepSeek 7B, Gemma 2 27B, Gemma 2 2B +13 more

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Transformer-based architectures, are vulnerable to an attention hijacking attack via optimized adversarial suffixes. The vulnerability resides in the shallow information flow mechanism of the attention layer, where specific token sequences (adversarial suffixes) can exert irregular and extreme dominance over the internal representation of the final chat template tokens immediately preceding generation. This "hijacking" suppresses the representation of…

Universal Jailbreak Suffixes Are Strong Attention Hijackers
Affects: Gemma 2 2B IT, Qwen 2.5 0.5B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct +2 more

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically instruction-tuned variants, are vulnerable to safety guardrail bypass via adversarial suffix injection. By appending a specific sequence of tokens—often semantically meaningless characters or carefully crafted distractors—to a malicious query, an attacker can manipulate the model's internal representation to override alignment training (RLHF). This coercion causes the model to affirmatively respond to otherwise refused requests, such as generating…

Adversarial Suffix Filtering: a Defense Pipeline for LLMs
Affects: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B +2 more

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
Affects: SpeechGPT

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.