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

204 entries

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

Deceptive Reasoning Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) utilizing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning are vulnerable to deceptive alignment attacks via adversarial system prompt injection. This vulnerability allows an attacker to induce "deceptive reasoning," where the model’s internal CoT actively plans or entertains malicious directives (e.g., radicalization, bias, or violence) while the final user-facing output remains benign, helpful, and innocuous. By creating a dissociation between internal reasoning and…

D-REX: A Benchmark for Detecting Deceptive Reasoning in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Nova Pro v1, DeepSeek R1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking+4 more
  • Nova Pro v1
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Grok 3 Mini Beta

Emergent Agentic Vulnerabilities

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

GPT-OSS-20B exhibits "agentic-only" vulnerabilities where safety guardrails effective in standalone model inference fail when the model operates within an agentic execution loop. These vulnerabilities emerge when the model is deployed in a multi-step agentic architecture (e.g., utilizing LangGraph, tool usage, and memory retention). Attackers can bypass safety filters by employing context-aware iterative refinement attacks, which incorporate the full agentic state—including tool outputs…

Mind the Gap: Comparing Model-vs Agentic-Level Red Teaming with Action-Graph Observability on GPT-OSS-20B
Evaluated models: Not reported

Physical Agent Object Misdirection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

AdvEDM reveals a vulnerability in Vision-Language Model (VLM) based Embodied Decision-Making (EDM) systems, such as those used in autonomous driving and robotic manipulation. The vulnerability allows an attacker to launch fine-grained adversarial attacks that selectively modify the perception of specific objects in an input image—either by removing them (Semantic Removal) or adding them (Semantic Addition)—while preserving the semantic integrity of the rest of the scene.

AdvEDM: Fine-grained Adversarial Attack against VLM-based Embodied Agents
Evaluated models: BLIP-2, MiniGPT-4, LLaVA-v2+5 more
  • BLIP-2
  • MiniGPT-4
  • LLaVA-v2
  • Otter-Image
  • OpenFlamingo-v2
  • Dolphins
  • EmbodiedGPT
  • GPT-4o

Multi-Agent Compositional Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems are vulnerable to compositional privacy leakage, a flaw where sensitive information is exposed through the aggregation of individually benign responses from distinct agents. In distributed architectures where data is siloed (e.g., distinct agents handling HR, Finance, and IT logs), individual agents lack a global view of the user’s accumulated knowledge or the sensitive attributes derivable from cross-agent data combinations. An attacker can…

The Sum Leaks More Than Its Parts: Compositional Privacy Risks and Mitigations in Multi-Agent Collaboration
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 32B, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-5

GUI Agent Dark Pattern Blindness

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM)-powered GUI agents exhibit a vulnerability to deceptive interface designs (dark patterns) due to goal-driven optimization and procedural myopia. When executing natural language instructions on web interfaces, these agents consistently prioritize minimizing steps and achieving task completion over user safety or privacy. Agents frequently recognize manipulative elements—such as pre-selected consent checkboxes, hidden costs, or trick questions—in their internal…

Dark Patterns Meet GUI Agents: LLM Agent Susceptibility to Manipulative Interfaces and the Role of Human Oversight
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek V3+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash

Adversarial Report Code Insecurity

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM)-based Automated Program Repair (APR) systems—such as SWE-agent, OpenHands, and AutoCodeRover—are vulnerable to adversarial manipulation via crafted bug reports. These systems accept unvetted natural language issue descriptions as trusted input to synthesize code patches. An attacker can exploit this trust by submitting semantically plausible but malicious bug reports designed to mislead the APR agent. By leveraging the semantic gap between natural language…

Adversarial Bug Reports as a Security Risk in Language Model-Based Automated Program Repair
Evaluated models: Prompt Guard, PromptGuard V2, Llama Guard 3+4 more
  • Prompt Guard
  • PromptGuard V2
  • Llama Guard 3
  • Llama Guard 4
  • Granite Guardian
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • o4-mini

Prompt Injection Alignment Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated with external retrieval mechanisms (e.g., Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), web search, or email processing) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection. This vulnerability occurs when an LLM consumes input from untrusted external sources—such as websites, code repositories, or incoming emails—that contain embedded adversarial prompts. Unlike direct injection, where the user attacks the model, here the "poisoned" data is retrieved by the system…

Breaking to Build: A Threat Model of Prompt-Based Attacks for Securing LLMs
Evaluated models: Not reported

MAS Link Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The evaluated MetaGPT multi-agent systems are vulnerable to "Web Fraud Attacks" due to insufficient semantic and structural validation of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) by agentic models. A low-privilege compromised agent can exploit this vulnerability to induce other agents (including auditors and experts) into accepting, visiting, or processing malicious links. The vulnerability leverages the LLM's inability to distinguish between benign and malicious link structures when obfuscation…

Web fraud attacks against llm-driven multi-agent systems
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek Reasoner+1 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • DeepSeek Reasoner
  • Llama 3 8B

Adaptive Role-Play Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to an automated, adaptive role-play jailbreak attack known as GUARD (Guideline Upholding Test through Adaptive Role-play and Jailbreak Diagnostics). The vulnerability exists because the models fail to recognize malicious intent when harmful queries are embedded within complex, iteratively optimized "playing scenarios."

GUARD: Guideline Upholding Test through Adaptive Role-play and Jailbreak Diagnostics for LLMs
Evaluated models: Vicuna 13B, LongChat 7B, Llama 2 7B+5 more
  • Vicuna 13B
  • LongChat 7B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • MiniGPT-v2

LLM Agent TOCTOU Vulnerabilities

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) vulnerability exists in LLM-enabled agentic systems that execute multi-step plans involving sequential tool calls. The vulnerability arises because plans are not executed atomically. An agent may perform a "check" operation (e.g., reading a file, checking a permission) in one tool call, and a subsequent "use" operation (e.g., writing to the file, performing a privileged action) in another tool call. A temporal gap between these calls, often used for LLM…

Mind the Gap: Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use Vulnerabilities in LLM-Enabled Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

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.