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

539 entries

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

Nugget Overfitting Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

AutoArgue, an LLM-based evaluation framework for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems, is susceptible to evaluation subversion attacks due to the public availability of its judging prompts and reference data structures. An adversarial RAG system (exemplified by the "Crucible" probe) can incorporate "insider knowledge" of the evaluation logic directly into its generation pipeline. By wrapping the generation process with the evaluator's specific prompts, the system can pre-filter…

Insider Knowledge: How Much Can RAG Systems Gain from Evaluation Secrets?
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.3 70B

STEP Manufacturing Corruption

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The STEP-LLM framework, utilized for generating Computer-Aided Design (CAD) STEP files (ISO 10303) from natural language, exhibits a safety alignment vulnerability during the fine-tuning of base Large Language Models (specifically Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct and Qwen-2.5-3B). The training pipeline employs Depth-First Search (DFS) reserialization and Reinforcement Learning (RL) with Scaled Chamfer Distance rewards to optimize for geometric fidelity and syntactic validity of Boundary Representation…

STEP-LLM: Generating CAD STEP Models from Natural Language with Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.2 3B, Qwen 2.5 3B

Dangerous Medical Faithfulness

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) where in-context information (e.g., provided via Retrieval-Augmented Generation) completely overrides parametric safety guardrails when processing counterfactual or adversarial medical evidence. When a prompt contains fabricated clinical context asserting the medical efficacy of toxic substances, illicit drugs, or nonsensical items, the LLM suppresses its internal knowledge of the substance's toxicity. Internal representation…

Faithfulness vs. Safety: Evaluating LLM Behavior Under Counterfactual Medical Evidence
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5 Mini, HuatuoGPT-o1-7B+6 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • HuatuoGPT-o1-7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
  • Llama 4 Maverick 17B Instruct
  • OLMo 3 7B Instruct
  • OLMo 3 7B Think
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Hidden Social RAG Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Web-facing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) and retrieval poisoning via web-native markup and Unicode carriers. Standard ingestion pipelines often parse untrusted web pages without stripping invisible constructs, such as hidden HTML spans, off-screen CSS, alt text, ARIA attributes, and zero-width characters. When an attacker embeds malicious instructions within these invisible carriers on third-party sites, the RAG system retrieves…

Hidden-in-Plain-Text: A Benchmark for Social-Web Indirect Prompt Injection in RAG
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 2.5 14B

Function-Calling Agent Default Insecurity

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the function-calling mechanisms of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically identified as "Renaming Tool Poisoning" (RTP). This attack vector exploits the model's visibility into both the natural language description and the actual code implementation of available tools. By embedding a two-part adversarial payload—one in the tool description directing focus to implementation variables, and another within the tool's source code variable…

Blue Teaming Function-Calling Agents
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 3B

Helpful Agent Default Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the task-planning and execution logic of Large Language Model (LLM) agents, specifically within trip-planning and web-use agents. The vulnerability, identified as a "User-Mediated Attack," occurs because agents prioritize task completion and "helpfulness" over safety verification when processing content provided by the user. When a benign user forwards untrusted external content (e.g., promotional text containing phishing links or malicious instructions) to the agent…

Too Helpful to Be Safe: User-Mediated Attacks on Planning and Web-Use Agents
Evaluated models: Not reported

Uninvoked Tool Metadata Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents implementing the Model Context Protocol (MCP) are vulnerable to Implicit Tool Poisoning (ITP). This vulnerability allows an attacker to manipulate agent behavior by embedding malicious instructions within the metadata (specifically the natural language description) of a third-party tool. Unlike explicit tool poisoning, where the agent is tricked into invoking a malicious tool, ITP exploits the agent's contextual reasoning to force the invocation of a distinct…

MCP-ITP: An Automated Framework for Implicit Tool Poisoning in MCP
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o Mini, o1-mini+9 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • o1-mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 8B Thinking
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Qwen 3 32B Thinking
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B Thinking

Adversarial Prompts Defeat Code Defenses

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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

LLM Review Paraphrase Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-as-a-Reviewer systems, which utilize large language models to automate the peer review process, are vulnerable to the Paraphrasing Adversarial Attack (PAA). PAA is a black-box optimization technique that exploits the model's sensitivity to specific input sequences and self-preference bias. By iteratively paraphrasing specific manuscript sections (such as the abstract) using in-context learning (ICL) guided by previous review scores, an attacker can generate adversarial sequences that…

Paraphrasing Adversarial Attack on LLM-as-a-Reviewer
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4

Optimized Indirect Prompt Injection Crosses Retrieval Barrier

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper describes a reproducible black-box indirect prompt injection evaluation for embedding-based RAG and agent systems. It separates a poisoned document into a retrieval-optimized trigger fragment and an instruction-bearing attack fragment, showing that one injected item can be surfaced by natural queries and then influence model output or agent behavior. These are paper-reported findings; they were not independently verified here.

Overcoming the Retrieval Barrier: Indirect Prompt Injection in the Wild for LLM Systems
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Qwen 3 0.6B+19 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Qwen 3 1.7B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen3-11B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Llama 3.2 3B
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Vicuna 7B
  • Vicuna 13B
  • gte-modernbert-base
  • OpenAI text-embedding-3-small
  • Voyage AI voyage-3.5-lite
  • Alibaba Cloud text-embedding-v4
  • contriever-msmarco
  • Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B
  • Qwen3-Embedding-4B
  • Qwen3-Embedding-8B

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.