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

29 entries

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

Personalized Agent Double Agent

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

OpenClaw is vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI), Tool-Return Manipulation, and Persistent Memory Poisoning. The agent incorporates untrusted external content (e.g., fetched web pages) and external tool outputs directly into its observation stream without sufficient isolation. An attacker can embed malicious payloads into these external channels to hijack the agent's planning and execution trace. This allows the attacker to silently trigger high-privilege actions via OpenClaw's Skills…

From Assistant to Double Agent: Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks on OpenClaw for Personalized Local AI Agent
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 70B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Agent-as-a-Proxy Monitor Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Hybrid monitoring protocols for Large Language Model (LLM) agents, specifically those that strictly evaluate both Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and tool usage (such as LlamaFirewall's AlignmentCheck and Extract-and-Evaluate monitors), are vulnerable to "Agent-as-a-Proxy" indirect prompt injection attacks. Unlike standard injections that target the agent, this attack targets the monitoring model itself. By embedding a malicious string—optimized via an algorithm named Parallel-GCG—into…

Bypassing AI Control Protocols via Agent-as-a-Proxy Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

Payment Protocol Whisper Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Google Agent Payments Protocol (AP2), specifically within the reference implementation built using the Google Agent Development Kit (ADK) and Gemini models, contains vulnerabilities allowing for both indirect and direct prompt injection. The architecture fails to sufficiently isolate the Large Language Model (LLM) context from untrusted external data sources and user inputs.

Whispers of Wealth: Red-Teaming Google's Agent Payments Protocol via Prompt Injection
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash

Agent Confused Deputy Escalation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) orchestrated by Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a Confused Deputy privilege escalation attack. This vulnerability arises when an untrusted or low-privilege agent exploits the inter-agent communication channel (e.g., broadcast or peer-to-peer messaging) to manipulate a high-privilege trusted agent into executing sensitive tools on its behalf. The root cause is the lack of mandatory access control policies governing agent-to-agent interactions; trusted…

Taming Various Privilege Escalation in LLM-Based Agent Systems: A Mandatory Access Control Framework
Evaluated models: o1

Distractor Inverse Scaling

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Reasoning-capable Large Language Models (LLMs) and agentic AI systems exhibit a critical vulnerability to contextual distractors, resulting in catastrophic performance degradation (up to 80% drop in accuracy) and emergent misalignment. When the input context contains noise—specifically random documents, irrelevant chat history, or task-specific "hard negative" distractors—the models fail to filter this information. Instead of ignoring the noise, the models disproportionately attend to…

Lost in the Noise: How Reasoning Models Fail with Contextual Distractors
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek R1 0528+4 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • DeepSeek R1 0528
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Qwen 3 4B Thinking 2507
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B Thinking 2507

Latent Space Discontinuity Exploitation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in certain Large Language Models and diffusion models due to discontinuities in their latent space, which arise from data sparsity during training. An attacker can craft inputs containing lexically rare or semantically ambiguous constructs to guide the model's inference process toward these unstable, poorly-conditioned regions. This technique, termed "Alignment Degradation Induction," can degrade or bypass safety alignment mechanisms. Through iterative, multi-turn…

Exploiting Latent Space Discontinuities for Building Universal LLM Jailbreaks and Data Extraction Attacks
Evaluated models: Not reported

Agent Plan And Intent Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Deep Research (DR) agents, specifically those utilizing the "think-search-draft" architecture such as the WebThinker framework, contain a logic vulnerability in their recursive planning and information retrieval workflows. While the underlying Large Language Model (LLM) may possess alignment safeguards to reject harmful queries, the agentic framework creates a bypass vector. When a user submits a harmful query using specific adversarial strategies—specifically "Plan Injection" (manipulating…

Deep Research Brings Deeper Harm
Evaluated models: QwQ 32B, Qwen 3 32B, DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B+3 more
  • QwQ 32B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • DeepResearcher 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

RL-driven Formalized Prompt Jailbreaking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) where a harmful instruction can be obfuscated through a multi-step formalization process, bypassing safety mechanisms. The attack, named Prompt Jailbreaking via Semantic and Structural Formalization (PASS), uses a Reinforcement Learning (RL) agent to dynamically construct an adversarial prompt. The agent learns to apply a sequence of actions—such as symbolic abstraction, logical encoding, mathematical representation, metaphorical…

Formalization Driven LLM Prompt Jailbreaking via Reinforcement Learning
Evaluated models: DeepSeek V3, Qwen 3 14B

Search Agents Vulnerable to Unreliable Results

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based search agents are vulnerable to manipulation via unreliable search results. An attacker can craft a website containing malicious content (e.g., misinformation, harmful instructions, or indirect prompt injections) that is indexed by search engines. When an agent retrieves and processes this page in response to a benign user query, it may uncritically accept the malicious content as factual and incorporate it into its final response. This allows the agent to be used as a vector for…

SafeSearch: Automated Red-Teaming for the Safety of LLM-Based Search Agents
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Pro+11 more
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemma 3 27B IT
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-5
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Kimi K2
  • o4-mini
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Qwen 3 8B

Emergent Agentic Vulnerabilities

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

GPT-OSS-20B exhibits "agentic-only" vulnerabilities where safety guardrails effective in standalone model inference fail when the model operates within an agentic execution loop. These vulnerabilities emerge when the model is deployed in a multi-step agentic architecture (e.g., utilizing LangGraph, tool usage, and memory retention). Attackers can bypass safety filters by employing context-aware iterative refinement attacks, which incorporate the full agentic state—including tool outputs…

Mind the Gap: Comparing Model-vs Agentic-Level Red Teaming with Action-Graph Observability on GPT-OSS-20B
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.