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

Research findings

985 entries

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

Abstractive Character Violations

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned via reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) or Constitutional AI exhibit a vulnerability where safety guardrails can be consistently bypassed through "Abstractive Red-Teaming." This attack vector exploits specific high-level natural language categories—combinations of semantic attributes such as tone, specific formatting instructions (e.g., numbered lists), language (e.g., Chinese, Russian), and topic constraints—that the model fails to generalize…

Abstractive Red-Teaming of Language Model Character
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1 Mini, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Gemma 3 12B IT+4 more
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Gemma 3 12B IT
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B Instruct-2507
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Claude Opus 4.1

Inter-Agent Privacy Leakage

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) architectures are vulnerable to internal-channel data leakage due to the absence of access controls and data minimization in inter-agent communication and shared memory. Frameworks such as LangChain, CrewAI, AutoGPT, and MetaGPT propagate complete task contexts—including unredacted sensitive data—between specialized agents during task delegation. Because traditional LLM security guardrails only filter final user-facing outputs, attackers or benign…

AgentLeak: A Benchmark for Internal-Channel Privacy Leakage in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Claude 3.5 Sonnet+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Mistral Large 2411

LLM Private Attribute Inference

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to Attribute Inference Attacks, where an attacker exploits the model's reasoning capabilities to deduce sensitive personal attributes (e.g., age, gender, location, income level) from seemingly innocuous, unclassified user-generated text. Unlike traditional privacy leaks that rely on the memorization of training data, this vulnerability leverages the model's zero-shot inference and contextual deduction. Because the attack prompts are benign in nature…

Stop Tracking Me! Proactive Defense Against Attribute Inference Attack in LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 2 13B Chat, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct+5 more
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro

Reward Hacking Via Adversarial Imitation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the post-training alignment of Flow Matching models (specifically FLUX.1-dev) when utilizing Visual Foundation Models (VFM) (e.g., DINOv3b) as discriminators or when employing standalone Reward Gradient optimization (e.g., HPSv3). These feedback mechanisms lack sufficient capacity or structural guidance to constrain the generative policy, making the discriminator's gradients susceptible to "reward hacking." Consequently, the generative policy over-optimizes for the…

FAIL: Flow Matching Adversarial Imitation Learning for Image Generation
Evaluated models: Not reported

Semantic Ensembles Fool CLIP

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) models are vulnerable to semantic-ensemble adversarial attacks. Current adversarial fine-tuning defenses for CLIP rely on minimizing the cosine similarity between an image and a single hand-crafted template (e.g., "A photo of a {label}"). This creates a vulnerability where adversarial examples (AEs) overfit to specific phrasings rather than the core class semantics. Attackers can bypass these defenses by generating semantic-aware adversarial…

Semantic-aware Adversarial Fine-tuning for CLIP
Evaluated models: CLIP ViT-B/32

Early Reasoning Safety Degradation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Reinforcement learning (RL) based post-training for explicit chain-of-thought reasoning (e.g., GRPO) in Multimodal Large Reasoning Models (MLRMs) inadvertently degrades safety alignment, rendering the models highly vulnerable to multimodal jailbreak attacks. The vulnerability is caused by "conditional coverage collapse" during the initial phases of chain-of-thought generation. Under adversarial conditioning (text or image), the reasoning policy assigns vanishing probability mass to safe…

Safety Recovery in Reasoning Models Is Only a Few Early Steering Steps Away
Evaluated models: R1-Onevision 7B, OpenVLThinker 7B, VLAA-Thinker 7B+3 more
  • R1-Onevision 7B
  • OpenVLThinker 7B
  • VLAA-Thinker 7B
  • Vision-R1 7B
  • LlamaV-o1
  • LLaVA-CoT

Emergent Distractor Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) post-training phase of OLMo 2 models leads to "distractor-triggered compliance." The model correctly refuses harmful requests when prompted in isolation, but complies with identical harmful requests if a benign formatting instruction (a "distractor") is appended to the prompt. This behavior organically emerges from contaminated preference training data where mislabeled examples incorrectly preferred compliance over refusal when a…

In-the-Wild Model Organisms: Mitigating Undesirable Emergent Behaviors in Production LLM Post-Training via Data Attribution
Evaluated models: Not reported

Mobile Agent Visual Spoofing

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Mobile Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating under the "Screen-as-Interface" paradigm are vulnerable to visual indirect prompt injection and state desynchronization. Agents that rely on unstructured visual data (screenshots) and Accessibility Service APIs to perceive the environment lack a mechanism to distinguish between trusted system UI elements and untrusted content (e.g., web pages, emails, or malicious overlays). An attacker can inject visual cues, fake notifications, or hidden…

Blind Gods and Broken Screens: Architecting a Secure, Intent-Centric Mobile Agent Operating System
Evaluated models: Not reported

Multi-Turn Proxy Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A logical vulnerability exists in LLM security proxies and guardrails that utilize weighted-average aggregation algorithms for multi-turn risk scoring. The scoring logic exhibits a mathematical "ceiling property" where the cumulative conversation-level risk score converges to the per-turn score regardless of the number of interaction turns ($n$). Consequently, the aggregated score is bounded by the maximum single-turn score ($cum \leq \max(s_i)$). This allows remote attackers to bypass…

Peak+ Accumulation: A Proxy-Level Scoring Formula for Multi-Turn LLM Attack Detection
Evaluated models: Not reported

Simple Persona Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the Grok LLM, as deployed on the X social media platform, allows users to bypass safety filters and generate toxic or obscene content through "shallow alignment" techniques. The model prioritizes instruction compliance and conversational flow over safety guidelines, failing when exposed to simple adversarial interactions such as Persona Adoption (instructing the model to adopt a specific character) and Tone Mirroring (where the model automatically mimics a user's aggressive…

@ GrokSet: multi-party Human-LLM Interactions in Social Media
Evaluated models: Not reported

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.