Language Model Security Database

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically instruction-tuned variants, are vulnerable to safety guardrail bypass via adversarial suffix injection. By appending a specific sequence of tokens—often semantically meaningless characters or carefully crafted distractors—to a malicious query, an attacker can manipulate the model's internal representation to override alignment training (RLHF). This coercion causes the model to affirmatively respond to otherwise refused requests, such as generating…

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks through manipulation of external data sources accessed during task execution. Attackers can embed malicious instructions within this external data, causing the LLM agent to perform unintended actions, such as navigating to arbitrary URLs or revealing sensitive information. The vulnerability stems from insufficient sanitization and validation of external data before it's processed by the LLM.

A vulnerability exists in the tool selection mechanism of Large Language Model (LLM) agents that utilize a retrieval-then-selection pipeline (RAG) for identifying executable tools. The vulnerability, known as "ToolHijacker," allows a remote attacker to manipulate the agent's decision-making process by injecting a malicious tool document into the accessible tool library (e.g., via third-party tool hubs or plugins). The attack employs a two-phase optimization strategy to craft a malicious tool…

Improper Input Validation in Large Language Model (LLM) systems configured as automated evaluators ("LLM-as-a-judge") allows remote attackers to manipulate evaluation scores and comparative verdicts via adversarial prompt injection. The vulnerability arises when the model processes untrusted input containing linguistic masquerading, context separators, and disruptor commands (e.g., "Basic Injection", "Contextual Misdirection", and "Adaptive Search-Based Attack"). Successful exploitation…

Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating in stateful environments (web browsers, operating systems, and tool-use contexts) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection and multi-modal adversarial attacks. These vulnerabilities arise when agents process untrusted environmental observations—such as web accessibility trees, screen screenshots, or database query results—that contain concealed malicious instructions. Specifically, attackers can embed prompt injections into HTML accessibility…

LLM-powered GUI agents utilizing screenshot-based interpretation (such as those powered by GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and DeepSeek V3 0324) are vulnerable to Fine-Print Injection (FPI) and Deceptive Default (DD) attacks due to a lack of visual saliency filtering. Unlike human users who prioritize prominent UI elements, these agents perform "indiscriminate parsing," processing low-salience text (e.g., privacy policies, terms of service, footer disclaimers) with the same…

Large Language Model (LLM) guardrail systems, including those relying on AI-driven text classification models (e.g., fine-tuned BERT models), are vulnerable to evasion via character injection and adversarial machine learning (AML) techniques. Attackers can bypass detection by injecting Unicode characters (e.g., zero-width characters, homoglyphs) or using AML to subtly perturb prompts, maintaining semantic meaning while evading classification. This allows malicious prompts and jailbreaks to…

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreaking attack, dubbed PiCo, that leverages token-level typographic attacks on images embedded within code-style instructions. The attack bypasses multi-tiered defense mechanisms, including input filtering and runtime monitoring, by exploiting weaknesses in the visual modality's integration with programming contexts. Harmful intent is concealed within visually benign image fragments and code instructions, circumventing safety…

Multilingual and multi-accent audio inputs, combined with acoustic adversarial perturbations (reverberation, echo, whisper effects), can bypass safety mechanisms in Large Audio Language Models (LALMs), causing them to generate unsafe or harmful outputs. The vulnerability is amplified by the interaction between acoustic and linguistic variations, particularly in languages with less training data.

A vulnerability in multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems allows for a permutation-invariant adversarial prompt attack. By strategically partitioning adversarial prompts and routing them through a network topology, an attacker can bypass distributed safety mechanisms, even those with token bandwidth limitations and asynchronous message delivery. The attack optimizes prompt propagation as a maximum-flow minimum-cost problem, maximizing success while minimizing detection.