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

267 entries

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

Indirect Environmental Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Embodied Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents utilizing Vision-Language Models (VLMs) for perception and planning are vulnerable to Indirect Environmental Jailbreak (IEJ). The vulnerability arises from the system's failure to distinguish between user-issued instructions and text embedded in the physical environment (e.g., writing on walls, sticky notes, or projections). The VLM processes visual text detected in the camera feed as authoritative context or direct commands, allowing a black-box…

The Shawshank Redemption of Embodied AI: Understanding and Benchmarking Indirect Environmental Jailbreaks
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Qwen3-VL Plus, Gemini 2.0 Flash+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Qwen3-VL Plus
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • GLM 4.5
  • DeepSeek-VL2
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet

LLM Agent Automates Backdoor Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the fine-tuning process of Large Language Models (LLMs) allows for the automated generation of stealthy backdoor attacks using an autonomous LLM agent. This method, termed AutoBackdoor, creates a pipeline to generate semantically coherent trigger phrases and corresponding poisoned instruction-response pairs. Unlike traditional backdoor attacks that rely on fixed, often anomalous triggers, this technique produces natural language triggers that are contextually relevant and…

AutoBackdoor: Automating Backdoor Attacks via LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3
  • Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

EvoSynth: Evolutionary Attack Synthesis

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a novel class of jailbreak attacks generated through the evolutionary synthesis of executable, code-based attack algorithms. Unlike traditional methods that refine or combine static prompts, this technique uses an automated multi-agent system (EvoSynth) to autonomously engineer and evolve the underlying code that generates the attack. These generated algorithms exhibit high structural and dynamic complexity, using features like control flow, state…

Evolve the Method, Not the Prompts: Evolutionary Synthesis of Jailbreak Attacks on LLMs
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.5, DeepSeek V3.2 Exp, GPT-4o+7 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5 Chat
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama Guard 2 8B
  • Llama Guard 3 8B
  • Llama Guard 4 12B
  • Qwen Max

MAS Pipeline Weak Links

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Centralized Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) architectures, specifically those implemented using frameworks such as Magentic-One, LangGraph, and OpenAI Agents, contain design-level vulnerabilities facilitating safety alignment bypasses. Two primary mechanisms drive this vulnerability: 1. Context Fragmentation via Atomic Delegation: The orchestrator decomposes adversarial prompts into atomic, granular sub-tasks (e.g., "click button," "write function header") before delegating them to sub-agents. These…

Exposing Weak Links in Multi-Agent Systems under Adversarial Prompting
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

Multi-Agent Typo Vulnerability

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems employing ensemble sampling-and-voting strategies (specifically the "Agent Forest" framework) are vulnerable to adversarial input perturbations. While increasing the number of agents ($n \in \{1, \dots, 25\}$) improves accuracy on clean inputs, the system fails to mitigate the impact of synthetic punctuation noise and human-like typographical errors. Attackers can introduce surface-level perturbations—such as random punctuation insertion (10-50%…

More Agents Improve Math Problem Solving but Adversarial Robustness Gap Persists
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 3 4B+3 more
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Gemma 3 4B
  • Gemma 3 12B

Needle-in-Haystack Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A safety bypass vulnerability, dubbed "Ninja" (Needle-in-a-haystack jailbreak), exists in long-context Large Language Models (LLMs). The vulnerability exploits a degradation in safety alignment that occurs when a harmful goal is embedded within a massive, benign context window. Unlike traditional adversarial attacks that use unintelligible strings or "many-shot" attacks that use harmful examples, this method utilizes thematically relevant but innocuous text (the "haystack"). The attack…

Jailbreaking in the Haystack
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Gemini 2.0 Flash+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Mistral 7B v0.3
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Mobile Agent Channel Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Mobile LLM-based agents (including Mobile-Agent-E, AppAgent, AutoDroid, and others) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks delivered via untrusted third-party mobile channels, such as in-app advertisements, system notifications, and embedded webviews. These agents utilize Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to perceive the device state via screenshots or accessibility trees. The vulnerability exists because the agents concatenate the user's prompt ($p$) with the environmental…

Measuring the Security of Mobile LLM Agents under Adversarial Prompts from Untrusted Third-Party Channels
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o+1 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1 Mini

Internal Prompt Leak Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based coding agents integrated into IDEs (e.g., VS Code Copilot, Cursor, Windsurf) are vulnerable to a query-agnostic Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attack termed "QueryIPI." This vulnerability allows an attacker to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the developer's machine by injecting a malicious tool definition (e.g., via the Model Context Protocol) into the agent's context.

QueryIPI: Query-agnostic Indirect Prompt Injection on Coding Agents
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4

LLM Data Instruction Override

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) integrated agents and applications are vulnerable to Prompt Injection attacks where untrusted data (e.g., retrieved documents, tool outputs, website content) overrides system instructions. Because LLMs typically process instructions and data within a single context window without strict separation, an attacker can embed imperative commands within the data channel. This vulnerability extends beyond simple overriding instructions; it includes sophisticated techniques…

Defending against prompt injection with datafilter
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Trust Paradox Agent Over-Exposure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A privilege escalation and information disclosure vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) utilizing explicit inter-agent trust modeling. When the internal trust coefficient ($\tau$) between a Custodian-Agent (holding sensitive data) and a Seeker-Agent is set to a high level (e.g., $\tau=0.9$) to optimize coordination efficiency, the Custodian-Agent systematically fails to enforce Minimum Necessary Information (MNI) principles. This…

The Trust Paradox in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems: When Collaboration Becomes a Security Vulnerability
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B

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.