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

273 entries

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

Mobile Agent Channel Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Mobile LLM-based agents (including Mobile-Agent-E, AppAgent, AutoDroid, and others) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks delivered via untrusted third-party mobile channels, such as in-app advertisements, system notifications, and embedded webviews. These agents utilize Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to perceive the device state via screenshots or accessibility trees. The vulnerability exists because the agents concatenate the user's prompt ($p$) with the environmental…

Measuring the Security of Mobile LLM Agents under Adversarial Prompts from Untrusted Third-Party Channels
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o+1 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1 Mini

Internal Prompt Leak Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based coding agents integrated into IDEs (e.g., VS Code Copilot, Cursor, Windsurf) are vulnerable to a query-agnostic Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attack termed "QueryIPI." This vulnerability allows an attacker to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the developer's machine by injecting a malicious tool definition (e.g., via the Model Context Protocol) into the agent's context.

QueryIPI: Query-agnostic Indirect Prompt Injection on Coding Agents
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4

LLM Data Instruction Override

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) integrated agents and applications are vulnerable to Prompt Injection attacks where untrusted data (e.g., retrieved documents, tool outputs, website content) overrides system instructions. Because LLMs typically process instructions and data within a single context window without strict separation, an attacker can embed imperative commands within the data channel. This vulnerability extends beyond simple overriding instructions; it includes sophisticated techniques…

Defending against prompt injection with datafilter
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Trust Paradox Agent Over-Exposure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A privilege escalation and information disclosure vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) utilizing explicit inter-agent trust modeling. When the internal trust coefficient ($\tau$) between a Custodian-Agent (holding sensitive data) and a Seeker-Agent is set to a high level (e.g., $\tau=0.9$) to optimize coordination efficiency, the Custodian-Agent systematically fails to enforce Minimum Necessary Information (MNI) principles. This…

The Trust Paradox in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems: When Collaboration Becomes a Security Vulnerability
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B

AI Browser Indirect Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Agentic AI browsers and LLM-powered browser extensions are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection via the processing of untrusted web content. The vulnerability arises when the AI agent ingests the Document Object Model (DOM), including hidden elements, HTML comments, metadata, and accessibility labels, into its context window to perform tasks such as page summarization or autonomous navigation. Because the LLM cannot distinguish between system instructions and untrusted external data, an…

In-browser llm-guided fuzzing for real-time prompt injection testing in agentic AI browsers
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Llama 3.1 70B, Llama 3.3 70B

Agent Plan And Intent Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Deep Research (DR) agents, specifically those utilizing the "think-search-draft" architecture such as the WebThinker framework, contain a logic vulnerability in their recursive planning and information retrieval workflows. While the underlying Large Language Model (LLM) may possess alignment safeguards to reject harmful queries, the agentic framework creates a bypass vector. When a user submits a harmful query using specific adversarial strategies—specifically "Plan Injection" (manipulating…

Deep Research Brings Deeper Harm
Evaluated models: QwQ 32B, Qwen 3 32B, DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B+3 more
  • QwQ 32B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • DeepResearcher 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Distributed Backdoor in Multi-Agent Systems

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A distributed backdoor vulnerability, named "Collaborative Shadows", exists in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) that rely on external or modifiable tools. An attacker can poison multiple agent tools by embedding inert, encrypted "attack primitives" within them. These primitives are fragments of a larger malicious payload. A carefully crafted user instruction acts as both a trigger and a decryption key. The instruction steers the agents to collaborate in a specific sequence, causing them to…

Collaborative Shadows: Distributed Backdoor Attacks in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, GLM 4.5, GPT-4.1+2 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GLM 4.5
  • GPT-4.1
  • Kimi K2 Instruct
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B

Special Token Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) that use special tokens to define conversational structure (e.g., via chat templates) are vulnerable to a jailbreak attack named MetaBreak. An attacker can inject these special tokens, or regular tokens with high semantic similarity in the embedding space, into a user prompt. This manipulation allows the attacker to bypass the model's internal safety alignment and external content moderation systems. The attack leverages four primitives: 1. Response Injection…

MetaBreak: Jailbreaking Online LLM Services via Special Token Manipulation
Evaluated models: Claude Opus 4, Gemma 2 27B IT, GPT-4.1+9 more
  • Claude Opus 4
  • Gemma 2 27B IT
  • GPT-4.1
  • Llama 3.1 405B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Llama Guard
  • Llama Guard 3 8B
  • Phi-4
  • Prompt Guard
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • ShieldGemma 2 27B

Adaptive Monitor Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

AI control protocols utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) as "trusted monitors" to oversee stronger "untrusted" models are vulnerable to adaptive prompt injection attacks. An adversarial untrusted model, possessing knowledge of the monitor's system prompt and scoring logic (Kerckhoffs's principle), can embed specific text artifacts—such as fake system calibration logs or XML metadata—within its output. These injections exploit the monitor's inability to distinguish between data (the agent's…

Adaptive Attacks on Trusted Monitors Subvert AI Control Protocols
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4.1+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-5
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • DeepSeek Chat

Adaptive Typographic Image Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal agents built on Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to adaptive typographic prompt injection attacks (AgentTypo). This vulnerability allows an attacker to execute indirect prompt injection by embedding adversarial text prompts directly into images (e.g., webpage screenshots, product photos) processed by the agent. Unlike standard visual adversarial attacks that rely on noise perturbation, this method utilizes the AgentTypo framework to perform black-box Bayesian…

AgentTypo: Adaptive Typographic Prompt Injection Attacks against Black-box Multimodal Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4V, GPT-4o Mini+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4V
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Claude 3 Opus

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.