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

406 entries

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

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

Universal Prompt Disables Guardrails

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A universal prompt injection vulnerability, termed "Involuntary Jailbreak," affects multiple large language models. The attack uses a single prompt that instructs the model to learn a pattern from abstract string operators (X and Y). The model is then asked to generate its own examples of questions that should be refused (harmful questions) and provide detailed, non-refusal answers to them, in order to satisfy the learned operator logic. This reframes the generation of harmful content as a…

Involuntary Jailbreak
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Haiku, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Claude Opus 4+29 more
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Claude Opus 4
  • Claude Opus 4.1
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 3 Pro
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Grok 3
  • Grok 3 Fast
  • Grok 3 Mini
  • Grok 4
  • Grok 4.1
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.1 405B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Llama 4 Scout
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Mistral Small 24B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B Instruct 2507
  • Qwen 3 Coder 480B-A35B Instruct

MDH: Hybrid Jailbreak Detection Strategy

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large language models that support a developer role in their API are vulnerable to a jailbreaking attack that leverages malicious developer messages. An attacker can craft a developer message that overrides the model's safety alignment by setting a permissive persona, providing explicit instructions to bypass refusals, and using few-shot examples of harmful query-response pairs. This technique, named D-Attack, is effective on its own. A more advanced variant, DH-CoT, enhances the attack by…

Jailbreaking Commercial Black-Box LLMs with Explicitly Harmful Prompts
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1+13 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • o1-mini
  • o1
  • o3-mini
  • o3
  • o4-mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • DeepSeek V3
  • DeepSeek R1 0528
  • DeepSeek R1

Back-Translation Watermark Stripping

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Implementations of Large Language Model (LLM) watermarking algorithms—specifically KGW (Kirchenbauer et al.), Semantic Invariant Robust (SIR) Watermark, Entropy-based Text Watermarking (EWD), and Unbiased Watermarking—are vulnerable to watermark stripping via adversarial text perturbation. When watermarked text generated by models such as OPT-1.3B is subjected to automated paraphrasing or back-translation (e.g., English $\to$ French $\to$ English), the embedded statistical signals are…

Signature vs. Substance: Evaluating the Balance of Adversarial Resistance and Linguistic Quality in Watermarking Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B

Automated Red-Teaming Achieves 100% ASR

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to automated adversarial attacks that systematically combine multiple jailbreaking "primitives" into complex prompt chains. A dynamic optimization engine can generate and test billions of unique combinations of techniques (e.g., low-resource language translation, payload splitting, role-playing) to bypass safety guardrails. This combinatorial approach differs from manual red-teaming by systematically exploring the attack surface, achieving…

LLM Robustness Leaderboard v1--Technical report
Evaluated models: Yi Large, Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct+36 more
  • Yi Large
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen Max
  • Qwen Plus
  • Nova Lite v1
  • Nova Micro v1
  • Nova Pro v1
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • Claude 3 Opus
  • Claude 3 Sonnet
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku 20241022
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20241022
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemma 2 27B IT
  • Granite 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 90B Vision Instruct
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Phi-4
  • Ministral 8B
  • Mistral Nemo
  • Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
  • Mixtral 8x7B Instruct
  • Pixtral Large 2411
  • GPT-4o 2024-08-06
  • GPT-4o 2024-11-20
  • GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18
  • o1 2024-12-17
  • o3-mini 2025-01-14
  • Falcon 3 10B Instruct
  • Grok 2 1212

Physical Patch Driving Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) employed in autonomous driving (AD) systems are vulnerable to a physically realizable adversarial patch attack dubbed "PhysPatch." This vulnerability exists because MLLMs inherit susceptibility to visual adversarial perturbations from their vision backbones. The attack utilizes a semantic-aware mask initialization strategy combined with a potential field algorithm to identify physically plausible regions for patch placement within a driving scene (e.g…

PhysPatch: A Physically Realizable and Transferable Adversarial Patch Attack for Multimodal Large Language Models-based Autonomous Driving Systems
Evaluated models: LLaVA v1.6 13B, Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct, Llama 3.2 90B Vision Instruct+8 more
  • LLaVA v1.6 13B
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 90B Vision Instruct
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Qwen 2.5 VL Max
  • o3
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • QVQ-Plus

Graph-LLM Template Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the graph encoding architecture of LLaGA (Large Language and Graph Assistant), specifically within the "neighborhood detail template" used to construct node sequences. LLaGA enforces a fixed-shape computational tree for each node; when a target node has fewer neighbors than the required template size (e.g., $k$ children), the system utilizes placeholders to maintain the fixed structure.

Adversarial Attacks and Defenses on Graph-aware Large Language Models (LLMs)
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Llama 2 7B, Vicuna 7B

Stealthy Multi-Round Communication Tampering

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (LLM-MAS) where an attacker with control over the communication network can perform a multi-round, adaptive, and stealthy message tampering attack. By intercepting and subtly modifying inter-agent messages over multiple conversational turns, an attacker can manipulate the system's collective reasoning process. The attack (named MAST in the reference paper) uses a fine-tuned policy model to generate a sequence of small, context-aware…

Attack the Messages, Not the Agents: A Multi-round Adaptive Stealthy Tampering Framework for LLM-MAS
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct+3 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3
  • Qwen 3 8B

Agent Tool Metadata Lure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the tool selection mechanisms of Large Language Model (LLM) agents, identified as the "Attractive Metadata Attack" (AMA). This flaw allows an adversary to manipulate the metadata (names, descriptions, and parameter schemas) of malicious external tools to statistically maximize the likelihood of their selection by the agent, without requiring prompt injection or access to model internals. The vulnerability exploits the agent’s semantic scoring function used to map user…

Attractive Metadata Attack: Inducing LLM Agents to Invoke Malicious Tools
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct+2 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct
  • Gemma 3 27B IT
  • Qwen 3 32B

Autonomous LLMs Jailbreak Models

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) can be instructed via a single system prompt to act as autonomous adversarial agents. These agents engage in multi-turn persuasive dialogues to systematically bypass the safety mechanisms of target language models. The LRM autonomously plans and executes the attack by initiating a benign conversation and gradually escalating the harmfulness of its requests, thereby circumventing defenses that are not robust to sustained, context-aware persuasive attacks. This…

Large Reasoning Models Are Autonomous Jailbreak Agents
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4, DeepSeek R1, DeepSeek V3+11 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4o
  • Grok 3
  • Grok 3 Mini
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • o4-mini
  • Qwen 2.5 32B
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B

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.