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

171 entries

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

Adversarial Speech Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (LLMs) processing speech input are vulnerable to adversarial attacks. Imperceptible perturbations added to audio input can cause the model to generate unsafe or harmful text responses, overriding built-in safety mechanisms. The attacks are effective even with limited knowledge of the model's internal workings, demonstrating transferability across different models.

SpeechGuard: Exploring the adversarial robustness of multimodal large language models
Evaluated models: Flan-T5 XL, Llama 7B, Llama 2 13B Chat+2 more
  • Flan-T5 XL
  • Llama 7B
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Mistral 7B Instruct
  • SpeechGPT

LLM Fake News Generation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a novel prompting technique, "conditional Variational-autoencoder-Like Prompt" (VLPrompt), which enables the generation of highly convincing fake news articles. VLPrompt overcomes limitations of previous methods by eliminating the need for additional human-collected data while maintaining contextual coherence and detail. This allows for the automated mass-production of realistic-sounding fake news.

Exploring the deceptive power of llm-generated fake news: A study of real-world detection challenges
Evaluated models: Not reported

Color-Aware Watermark Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A color-aware attack, Self Color Testing-based Substitution (SCTS), bypasses watermarking mechanisms in LLMs designed to identify AI-generated text. SCTS exploits the LLM's compliance with instructions to infer the "color" (green/red token classification) of tokens, allowing for targeted substitution of watermarked tokens with non-watermarked tokens, thus evading watermark detection. The attack is particularly effective against watermarks that utilize logit perturbation to bias token selection.

Bypassing LLM Watermarks with Color-Aware Substitutions
Evaluated models: Not reported

One-Image VLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A data poisoning attack, termed ImgTrojan, allows adversaries to bypass safety mechanisms in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) by injecting a small number of maliciously crafted image-caption pairs into the training dataset. These poisoned pairs associate seemingly benign images with jailbreak prompts, causing the VLM to generate unsafe outputs when presented with the poisoned images at inference time. The attack's success rate is notably high even with a very low poison ratio (e.g., one poisoned…

ImgTrojan: Jailbreaking Vision-Language Models with ONE Image
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 13B, LLaVA 1.5 7B

Embedding-Translated Adversarial Suffixes

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A novel adversarial suffix embedding translation framework (ASETF) enables efficient and highly successful attacks against large language models (LLMs). ASETF optimizes continuous adversarial suffix embeddings, then translates these embeddings into coherent, human-readable text. This bypasses existing defenses which rely on detecting unusual or nonsensical suffixes. The attack achieves a high success rate across multiple LLMs, including both open-source and black-box models.

ASETF: A Novel Method for Jailbreak Attack on LLMs through Translate Suffix Embeddings
Evaluated models: Alpaca 7B (Safe-RLHF), ChatGLM3 6B, GPT-3.5 Turbo+6 more
  • Alpaca 7B (Safe-RLHF)
  • ChatGLM3 6B
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-J 6B
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Mistral 7B
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5
  • Vicuna 13B v1.5

Instruction Tuning Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A novel gradient-guided backdoor trigger learning (GBTL) algorithm allows adversaries to inject backdoor triggers into instruction-tuning datasets for Large Language Models (LLMs). These triggers, appended to the input content without altering the instruction or label, cause the LLM to generate a pre-determined malicious response during inference, even with minimal poisoned training data (e.g., 1%). The triggers maintain low perplexity, making them difficult to detect by standard filtering…

Learning to poison large language models during instruction tuning
Evaluated models: Flan-T5 11B, Flan-T5 3B, Llama 2 13B+1 more
  • Flan-T5 11B
  • Flan-T5 3B
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama 2 7B

LLM Black-Box Fingerprinting

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to black-box identity verification attacks using Targeted Random Adversarial Prompts (TRAP). TRAP leverages adversarial suffixes to elicit a pre-defined response from a target LLM, while other models produce random outputs, enabling identification of the specific LLM used within a third-party application via black-box access. This allows unauthorized identification of the underlying LLM even without access to model weights or internal parameters.

TRAP: Targeted Random Adversarial Prompt Honeypot for Black-Box Identification
Evaluated models: Claude 2.1, Claude Instant 1.2, GPT-3.5 Turbo+12 more
  • Claude 2.1
  • Claude Instant 1.2
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • Guanaco 7B
  • Guanaco 13B
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Llama 2 70B Chat
  • Mixtral 8x7B
  • Nous Hermes 2 Mixtral 8x7B DPO
  • OpenChat 3.5
  • Vicuna 7B
  • Vicuna 13B

Multimodal Model Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreaking attack using crafted images (image Jailbreaking Prompts or imgJPs). These imgJPs, when presented as input alongside malicious prompts, cause the MLLM to bypass safety mechanisms and generate objectionable content, including instructions for harmful activities like identity theft or creation of violent video games. The attack demonstrates both prompt-universality (a single imgJP works across multiple prompts) and, to a…

Jailbreaking attack against multimodal large language model
Evaluated models: InstructBLIP, MiniGPT-4, MiniGPT-v2+3 more
  • InstructBLIP
  • MiniGPT-4
  • MiniGPT-v2
  • Mplug-owl2
  • Vicuna 13B
  • Vicuna 7B

GPT-4 API Gray-Box Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Newly added APIs to large language models (LLMs), such as fine-tuning, function calling, and knowledge retrieval, introduce novel attack vectors that bypass existing safety mechanisms and enable various malicious activities. Specifically, fine-tuning with even a small number of carefully crafted examples can remove or weaken built-in safety guardrails, resulting in the generation of misinformation, disclosure of private information (PII), and the creation of malicious code. Function calling…

Exploiting novel gpt-4 apis
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4

LLM Causal Neuron Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as Llama 2 and Vicuna exhibit a vulnerability where specific layers (e.g., layer 3 in Llama2-13B, layer 1 in Llama2-7B and Vicuna-13B) overfit to harmful prompts, resulting in a disproportionate influence on the model's output for such prompts. This overfitting creates a narrow "safety" mechanism easily bypassed by adversarial prompts designed to avoid triggering these specific layers. Additionally, a single neuron (e.g., neuron 2100 in Llama2 and Vicuna)…

Causality analysis for evaluating the security of large language models
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, Llama 2-13B-chat-hf, Llama 2-7B-chat-hf+1 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • Llama 2-13B-chat-hf
  • Llama 2-7B-chat-hf
  • Vicuna-13B Version 1.5

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.