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

609 entries

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

LLM Judge Framing Bias

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based evaluation systems ("LLM-as-a-Judge") exhibit a structural vulnerability termed "Framing Bias," wherein the model produces logically contradictory judgments depending on the syntactic framing of the evaluation prompt. Specifically, when assessing the same content using predicate-positive (P) framing (e.g., "Is this toxic?") versus predicate-negative (¬P) framing (e.g., "Is this non-toxic?"), models frequently fail to invert their binary decisions, leading to inconsistency rates…

When Wording Steers the Evaluation: Framing Bias in LLM judges
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 1B Instruct, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct+11 more
  • Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • o4-mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5

LLM Virtual Criminal Agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the safety alignment of state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) when deployed as autonomous agents in dynamic, interactive environments. While current safety guardrails effectively block static, single-turn harmful queries, they fail to prevent multi-step emergent criminal behavior in agentic loops. When situated in an open-ended sandbox simulation (such as the VirtualCrime framework), these LLMs successfully bypass alignment to proactively plan, coordinate, and…

VirtualCrime: Evaluating Criminal Potential of Large Language Models via Sandbox Simulation
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1 2025-04-14, GPT-5 Chat 2025-10-03, Claude Haiku 4.5 20251001+5 more
  • GPT-4.1 2025-04-14
  • GPT-5 Chat 2025-10-03
  • Claude Haiku 4.5 20251001
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5 20250929
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • DeepSeek R1 0528
  • Doubao 1.6 Thinking 250715
  • Qwen 3 Max

MLLM Over-Reasoning Safety Risk

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit a vulnerability to "Reasoning-based Multi-Image Attacks," where safety guardrails are bypassed by distributing harmful intent across multiple images (2–4 inputs). Unlike single-image jailbreaks that rely on visual obfuscation, this vulnerability exploits the model's reasoning capabilities. By presenting images that share a specific relationship (e.g., Temporal Jump, Spatial Juxtaposition, or Causality), an attacker can compel the model to infer…

The Side Effects of Being Smart: Safety Risks in MLLMs' Multi-Image Reasoning
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 1.5 Pro+11 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 32B Instruct
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • Llama 3 LLaVA-NeXT 8B
  • InternVL3 8B
  • InternVL3 38B
  • InternVL3 78B
  • MiniCPM-o 2.6
  • Skywork-R1V3 38B
  • GLM-4.1V 9B Thinking

Metacognitive Prompting Lowers Resistance

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to multi-turn persuasive conversational attacks that induce the adoption of counterfactual beliefs. By leveraging the Source–Message–Channel–Receiver (SMCR) communication framework, attackers can systematically erode a model's confidence in established facts and compel the model to output misinformation. Specific attack vectors include manipulating source attribution (authority framing), message content (logical, credibility, or emotional appeals)…

Vulnerability of LLMs' Belief Systems? LLMs Belief Resistance Check Through Strategic Persuasive Conversation Interventions
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.2 3B, Llama 3.3 70B+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.2 3B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

Physical Navigation Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based navigation agents, including NavGPT and prompt-tuned outdoor agents, are vulnerable to adaptive prompt injection attacks. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to hijack the physical movement of the agent by embedding optimized malicious instructions into benign natural language inputs. The issue arises because the agents parse user instructions to generate executable plans without sufficient separation between control logic and untrusted input. The PINA (Prompt Injection Attack…

PINA: Prompt Injection Attack against Navigation Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama 2 7B

Self-Evolving Red-Team Agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the safety alignment of several major Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to bypass content filters using complex, automatically generated adversarial prompts. Discovered via the AgenticRed evolutionary framework, the flaw is exploited by wrapping malicious intents in structured formats (such as strict JSON output contracts), combined with prefix injection and refusal suppression. By explicitly commanding the model to begin its response with a compliant prefix and…

AgenticRed: Evolving Agentic Systems for Red-Teaming
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-5.1+9 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5.1
  • GPT-5.2
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • Qwen 3 Max
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B

Drunk Language Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) where inducing "drunk language" behavior—simulating the text of an intoxicated human—bypasses safety guardrails and contextual privacy protections. Attackers can exploit this anthropomorphic flaw through inference-time persona prompting or lightweight post-training (causal fine-tuning or reinforcement learning on drunk text corpora). By forcing the model to adopt a stylistic and semantic framework associated with impaired human…

In Vino Veritas and Vulnerabilities: Examining LLM Safety via Drunk Language Inducement
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4o+3 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B

MLLM Chart Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Code-generation Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to directed misuse for the generation of misleading data visualizations. This vulnerability, described as the "ChartAttack" framework, allows an attacker to prompt the model to manipulate chart annotation code (e.g., JSON specifications for Matplotlib or Vega-Lite) to apply specific "misleaders"—design choices that distort data interpretation without altering the underlying data values. By…

ChartAttack: Testing the Vulnerability of LLMs to Malicious Prompting in Chart Generation
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 14B, LLaVA 7B, Phi-3

VLM In-the-Loop Adversary

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The VILTA (VLM-in-the-Loop Trajectory Adversary) framework is vulnerable to Prompt Injection and Data Poisoning via un-sanitized scene representation inputs. The system integrates a Vision-Language Model (Gemini-2.5-Flash) into a closed-loop reinforcement learning environment, feeding it Bird’s-Eye-View (BEV) imagery alongside text-based vehicle dynamics data (e.g., position, speed, and risk_category) to generate challenging driving trajectories. An attacker who can manipulate the input…

VILTA: A VLM-in-the-Loop Adversary for Enhancing Driving Policy Robustness
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash

Benign Praise Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) Fine-tuning-as-a-Service (FaaS) platforms that allows attackers to bypass safety alignment and moderation filters via a "TrojanPraise" benign fine-tuning attack. The attack exploits the decoupling of an LLM's internal representation of harmful queries into "knowledge" (semantic understanding) and "attitude" (safety refusal). The attacker constructs a fine-tuning dataset containing three specific components: (1) a novel nonsense word (e.g…

TrojanPraise: Jailbreak LLMs via Benign Fine-Tuning
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B+4 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 3B

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.