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

260 entries

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

Persona-Enhanced Genetic Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists where Large Language Models (LLMs) can be manipulated by prepending a specially crafted 'persona prompt', often in the system prompt. These persona prompts cause the model to shift its attention from sensitive keywords in a harmful request to the stylistic instructions of the persona. This weakens the model's safety alignment, significantly reducing its refusal rate for harmful queries. The vulnerability is particularly severe because these persona prompts have a…

Enhancing Jailbreak Attacks on LLMs via Persona Prompts
Evaluated models: DeepSeek V3, GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini+2 more
  • DeepSeek V3
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct

Parallel Decoding LLDM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Diffusion Models (LLDMs) due to their parallel denoising architecture. The PArallel Decoding (PAD) jailbreak attack exploits this architecture by injecting multiple, semantically innocuous "sequence connectors" (e.g., "Step 1:", "First") at distributed locations within the initial masked sequence. During the parallel denoising process, these injected tokens act as anchor points that bias the probability distribution of adjacent token predictions. This…

Jailbreaking Large Language Diffusion Models: Revealing Hidden Safety Flaws in Diffusion-Based Text Generation
Evaluated models: Gemma 7B IT, LLaDA 8B Base, LLaDA 8B Instruct+4 more
  • Gemma 7B IT
  • LLaDA 8B Base
  • LLaDA 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • MMaDA 8B Base
  • MMaDA 8B MixCoT
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Agent Intent Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM agents integrating with external environments (e.g., via tool use, web retrieval, or RAG) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks. Malicious instructions embedded in untrusted data sources—such as emails, webpages, or tool outputs—are ingested by the agent and treated as valid context. Because the backend Large Language Model (LLM) struggles to distinguish between system instructions, user instructions, and third-party data, these embedded prompts can hijack the execution flow…

PromptArmor: Simple yet Effective Prompt Injection Defenses
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1+1 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • o4-mini

Enterprise Multi-Turn Data Exfiltration

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) systems integrated with private enterprise data, such as those using Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), are vulnerable to multi-stage prompt inference attacks. An attacker can use a sequence of individually benign-looking queries to incrementally extract confidential information from the LLM's context. Each query appears innocuous in isolation, bypassing safety filters designed to block single malicious prompts. By chaining these queries, the attacker can…

Multi-Stage Prompt Inference Attacks on Enterprise LLM Systems
Evaluated models: GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4+1 more
  • GPT-2
  • GPT-3
  • GPT-4
  • RoBERTa

Academic Paper Trust Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreak attack termed Paper Summary Attack (PSA). An attacker can bypass safety alignment mechanisms by framing a harmful query within the context of a summarized academic paper. The model's propensity to trust the authoritative structure and tone of a research paper summary overrides its safety filters, leading it to process and respond to the embedded malicious instruction. The vulnerability is particularly potent when using summaries of…

Paper Summary Attack: Jailbreaking LLMs through LLM Safety Papers
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, DeepSeek R1, GPT-4o+3 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • DeepSeek R1
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5

Trojan Prompt Chains in Education

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Models, including GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, where safety guardrails can be bypassed using Trojanized prompt chains within a simulated educational context. An attacker can establish a benign, pedagogical persona (e.g., a curious student) over a multi-turn dialogue. This initial context is then exploited to escalate the conversation toward requests for harmful or restricted information, which the model provides because the session's context is perceived as safe…

Mitigating Trojanized Prompt Chains in Educational LLM Use Cases: Experimental Findings and Detection Tool Design
Evaluated models: BERT, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4

Inter-Agent Computer Takeover

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A remote code execution (RCE) and privilege escalation vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) multi-agent systems and agentic RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) architectures. The vulnerability arises from "Inter-Agent Trust Exploitation," where LLM agents implicitly trust instructions received from peer agents, bypassing safety guardrails and jailbreak defenses that are active during direct human-to-LLM interaction. An attacker can inject a malicious command payload (e.g., a…

The Dark Side of LLMs: Agent-based Attack Vectors for System-level Compromise
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1 Mini+15 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4.1
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Claude Opus 4
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Magistral Medium
  • Mistral Large
  • Mistral Small
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Llama 4 16x17B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B
  • Devstral 24B
  • DeepSeek R1 Tool Calling 70B

LLM Confidence Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing Verbal Confidence Elicitation (CEM)—where the model outputs a numeric confidence score (e.g., "Confidence: 90%") alongside an answer—are vulnerable to Verbal Confidence Attacks (VCAs). Adversaries can manipulate these confidence scores through two primary vectors: perturbation-based attacks (VCA-TF, VCA-TB, SSR) utilizing synonym substitution, typos, and token removal; and jailbreak-based attacks (ConfidenceTriggers, AutoDAN) utilizing optimized trigger…

On the Robustness of Verbal Confidence of LLMs in Adversarial Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4o+4 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • o3
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.3 70B

Airborne Audio LLM Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Audio-based Large Language Models (ALLMs), specifically Qwen2-Audio, are vulnerable to over-the-air adversarial audio attacks. An attacker with white-box access can generate robust adversarial audio perturbations using gradient-based optimization combined with audio augmentation techniques (specifically SpecAugment, translation, and additive noise). These perturbations, when played through a speaker in the physical environment, manipulate the ALLM processing the audio via a microphone. This…

Attacker's Noise Can Manipulate Your Audio-based LLM in the Real World
Evaluated models: Not reported

Forged Assistant Message Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability termed "Trojan Horse Prompting" exists in conversational multimodal models, specifically demonstrated on Google’s Gemini-2.0-flash-preview-image-generation. The vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass safety alignment mechanisms (RLHF and SFT) by manipulating the structural protocol of the conversational API. Unlike standard jailbreaks that manipulate the user prompt, this attack exploits "Asymmetric Safety Alignment" by forging a conversational history where the role is…

Trojan Horse Prompting: Jailbreaking Conversational Multimodal Models by Forging Assistant Message
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.0 Flash Preview Image Generation

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.