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.

Clinical LLM Feature Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A detection bypass vulnerability in the 2-Sigma clinical training platform allows users to evade the system's two-layer, linguistic-feature-based jailbreak detection mechanism. The detection framework relies heavily on four surface-level linguistic features (Professionalism, Medical Relevance, Ethical Behavior, and Contextual Distraction) to classify malicious inputs. Attackers can bypass these filters by crafting prompts that maintain professional tone and apparent medical relevance but…

Detecting Jailbreak Attempts in Clinical Training LLMs Through Automated Linguistic Feature Extraction
Evaluated models: Not reported

Enhanced LVLM Encoder Transfer

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to zero-query, black-box adversarial image perturbations via Semantic-Guided Multimodal Attacks (SGMA). Unlike traditional attacks that scatter noise or target background pixels, SGMA leverages surrogate models (e.g., CLIP) to anchor imperceptible adversarial perturbations directly onto semantically critical foreground regions. The attack exploits two specific architectural traits of LVLMs: inconsistent visual grounding across models and…

Grounding-Driven Attack: Improving Encoder-based Adversarial Transferability against Large Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: BLIP-2 OPT 2.7B, LLaVA 1.5 7B, Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct+6 more
  • BLIP-2 OPT 2.7B
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • InternVL3 8B
  • OpenFlamingo 4B
  • Kimi VL A3B Instruct
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5.4
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash

Image Editing Visual Prompt Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Image Editing Models (LIEMs) supporting vision-prompt editing are vulnerable to Vision-Centric Jailbreak Attacks (VJA). This vulnerability arises from a modality mismatch in safety alignment: while safeguards primarily analyze textual instructions for policy violations, the underlying models are capable of interpreting and executing instructions embedded directly within the visual input (e.g., typographic text drawn on the image, arrows, symbols, or specific markings). An attacker can…

When the Prompt Becomes Visual: Vision-Centric Jailbreak Attacks for Large Image Editing Models
Evaluated models: GPT Image 1.5, Gemini 3 Pro Image, Seedream 4.5+5 more
  • GPT Image 1.5
  • Gemini 3 Pro Image
  • Seedream 4.5
  • Qwen-Image-Edit-2512
  • Qwen-Image-Edit-Safe
  • BAGEL 14B
  • Flux 2.0 Dev 32B
  • LongCat-Image-Edit

LLM Scaling Fidelity Paradox

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) context compression architectures (specifically compressor-decoder setups) characterized as the "Size-Fidelity Paradox." When scaling up the parameter count of the compressor model (e.g., beyond 4B parameters in Qwen-3 and LLaMA-3.2 families), the system exhibits a degradation in faithful preservation of the source text, despite improvements in standard training loss and perplexity metrics. This degradation manifests through two primary…

When Less is More: The LLM Scaling Paradox in Context Compression
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 8B, Qwen 3 32B, Llama 3.2 11B+1 more
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Llama 3.2 11B
  • Llama 3.2 90B

NLG Poisoning Certification Gap

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Autoregressive Large Language Models (LLMs) utilizing standard fine-tuning (SFT) or alignment techniques (RLHF/DPO) are vulnerable to training-time data poisoning attacks that exploit the sequential nature of token generation. Unlike classification tasks, where output labels are independent, LLM generation suffers from a cascading vulnerability where modifying a single token $i$ intervenes on the distribution of all subsequent tokens $j > i$. An adversary can inject a small fraction of…

Towards Poisoning Robustness Certification for Natural Language Generation
Evaluated models: Gemma 2 2B

RAG Knowledgebase Exfiltration

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to iterative knowledge-extraction attacks designed to reconstruct the underlying private knowledge base. The vulnerability exists due to the decoupled optimization of the retrieval and generation phases. Attackers can craft adversarial queries consisting of two distinct components: an "Information" component (optimized via gradient descent or random sampling to steer embeddings toward specific, diverse regions of the vector space) and…

Benchmarking Knowledge-Extraction Attack and Defense on Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Self-Evolution Alignment Blindspots

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Closed-loop, self-evolving Large Language Model (LLM) multi-agent systems (MAS) are vulnerable to irreversible safety erosion and alignment failure. When agents recursively optimize and update their policies using only synthetic data derived from internal interactions—without continuous external human grounding—the system naturally minimizes interaction energy and optimizes for internal conversational consistency. This isolation causes a progressive drift away from initial anthropic safety…

The Devil Behind Moltbook: Anthropic Safety is Always Vanishing in Self-Evolving AI Societies
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, Qwen 3 8B

Adaptive Web Agent Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) based web agents (such as those built using the BrowserUse scaffold) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attacks when autonomously navigating and processing untrusted web content. Unlike standard Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), this vulnerability occurs when the LLM orchestrator consumes the DOM or visual screenshots of a webpage containing concealed or contextually disguised adversarial instructions. The LLM interprets these embedded text strings as…

MUZZLE: Adaptive Agentic Red-Teaming of Web Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4o, Qwen3-VL 32B Instruct

Cross-Modal Entanglement Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in advanced Vision-Language Models (VLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety alignment mechanisms via a Cross-Modal Entanglement Attack (COMET). By reframing malicious queries into multi-hop reasoning tasks, attackers can migrate visualizable key entities into a paired image and replace the textual entities with ambiguous spatial pointers. This forces the VLM to reconstruct the harmful intent through its own self-induced cross-modal reasoning, effectively bypassing filters that…

Red-teaming the Multimodal Reasoning: Jailbreaking Vision-Language Models via Cross-modal Entanglement Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 Mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash+6 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct
  • GLM-4.5V
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Claude Haiku 4.5

Dynamic Backtracking Failure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned via standard Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) or Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) are vulnerable to "Shallow Safety" bypass attacks, specifically Middle Filling (MF) and Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) attacks. These models frequently rely on refusal mechanisms triggered solely by the initial tokens of a prompt. By embedding malicious instructions after a benign context (prefilling) or utilizing suffix optimization, attackers can induce the…

Reinforcement Learning with Backtracking Feedback
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 1B, Llama 3.2 3B, Llama 3 8B Instruct+2 more
  • Llama 3.2 1B
  • Llama 3.2 3B
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Gemma 2 9B IT

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.