Language Model Security Database

LLM-based autonomous agents are vulnerable to implicit regulatory compliance failures during tool invocation. When initialized with unstructured regulatory policies and given goal-oriented user instructions that do not explicitly state safety requirements, LLMs frequently prioritize functional task completion over mandatory safety constraints. This leads to an "Unsafe Success" execution state, where the agent successfully achieves the user's business goal but silently bypasses critical…

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) specification v1.0 contains fundamental architectural vulnerabilities enabling server-side prompt injection and privilege escalation. The protocol relies on bidirectional sampling (sampling/createMessage) without cryptographic origin authentication or UI distinction, allowing connected servers to inject content that the LLM backend interprets as legitimate user input. Additionally, the protocol lacks isolation boundaries between concurrent server connections…

Large Language Models (LLMs) enabled with Function Calling (FC) capabilities are vulnerable to adversarial query rewriting and semantic manipulation. Standard FC models, typically trained via Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on static datasets, fail to generalize against adversarial inputs that deviate from fixed distribution patterns. An attacker can exploit this by crafting queries that are semantically similar to valid requests but engineered to induce "bad cases," such as incorrect tool…

Large Language Model (LLM) agents implementing the Model Context Protocol (MCP) are vulnerable to Implicit Tool Poisoning (ITP). This vulnerability allows an attacker to manipulate agent behavior by embedding malicious instructions within the metadata (specifically the natural language description) of a third-party tool. Unlike explicit tool poisoning, where the agent is tricked into invoking a malicious tool, ITP exploits the agent's contextual reasoning to force the invocation of a distinct…

The VILTA (VLM-in-the-Loop Trajectory Adversary) framework is vulnerable to Prompt Injection and Data Poisoning via un-sanitized scene representation inputs. The system integrates a Vision-Language Model (Gemini-2.5-Flash) into a closed-loop reinforcement learning environment, feeding it Bird’s-Eye-View (BEV) imagery alongside text-based vehicle dynamics data (e.g., position, speed, and risk_category) to generate challenging driving trajectories. An attacker who can manipulate the input…

Commercial Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) integrated systems are vulnerable to a "Dual Steganography" jailbreak paradigm (referred to as Odysseus). The vulnerability arises from the reliance of safety filters on the assumption that malicious content must be explicitly visible in the input or output modalities (text or image). Attackers can bypass these filters by encoding malicious queries into binary matrices and embedding them into benign-looking images using steganographic encoders…

Reasoning-specialized Large Language Models (LLMs) that utilize Chain-of-Thought (CoT) processes are vulnerable to reasoning-exploitation jailbreaks. Attackers can bypass standard safety alignments (such as RLHF) by using adaptive multi-turn interactions or semantic transformations to induce the model to generate intermediate reasoning steps that "rationalize" or "contextualize" a harmful request. Because current alignment techniques often fail to scale linearly with reasoning depth, forcing…

A safety bypass vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multi-Modal Models (LVLMs) that expose a "Prefix Completion" parameter in their inference APIs (e.g., echo or prefix parameters). The vulnerability exploits the model's autoregressive nature, where the model prioritizes local coherence with a user-supplied output prefix over global safety alignment (RLHF) or system instructions. By supplying a prefix that establishes a hostile narrative or intent (e.g., "My actions are as…

A vulnerability exists in the tool selection mechanisms of Large Language Model (LLM) agents, identified as the "Attractive Metadata Attack" (AMA). This flaw allows an adversary to manipulate the metadata (names, descriptions, and parameter schemas) of malicious external tools to statistically maximize the likelihood of their selection by the agent, without requiring prompt injection or access to model internals. The vulnerability exploits the agent’s semantic scoring function used to map user…

Large Language Model (LLM) agents capable of invoking external APIs are vulnerable to intent integrity violations. When an agent receives natural language instructions that are ambiguous, underspecified, or contain values not supported by the underlying API schema, the agent frequently fails to preserve user intent. Instead of rejecting the request or asking for clarification, the model may hallucinate parameter values, map unsupported requests to unsafe defaults, or execute actions on…