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

337 entries

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

Malicious GitHub Issue Injection Against Coding Agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

IssueTrojanBench studies indirect prompt injection when a coding agent processes an apparently ordinary software-development issue or related artifact. Starting with six legitimate seed issues from two Python repositories, the authors construct 696 adversarial issue variants spanning four unsafe-action families and six delivery formats, then execute those variants across six agent-model configurations.

IssueTrojanBench: Benchmarking AI Coding Agents Against Malicious Issue Requests
Evaluated models: GPT-5.3 Codex, GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6

Third-Party Agent Skill Supply-Chain Execution Risks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

OpenSkillRisk evaluates whether agent harnesses safely handle third-party skills that introduce risky behavior through otherwise plausible, benign tasks. The benchmark assembles 263 risky skills from public agent-skill ecosystems and tests three CLI-agent harnesses against seven risk categories using isolated task workspaces, mocked external services, and execution-level evidence.

OpenSkillRisk: Benchmarking Agent Safety When Using Real-World Risky Third-Party Skills
Evaluated models: GPT-5.1 Codex Mini, GPT-5.3 Codex, GPT-5.4+10 more
  • GPT-5.1 Codex Mini
  • GPT-5.3 Codex
  • GPT-5.4
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • Claude Opus 4.6
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • DeepSeek V4-Pro
  • Kimi-K2.6
  • GLM-5.1

Prompt injection across agent privilege boundaries

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Untrusted issue descriptions and tool responses can redirect privileged coding and tool agents. Twin Agent separates exploration from execution and restricts the information exchanged between them.

Twin Agent: Context Residual Compression for Privilege Separated Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 3.5 Flash

Unsafe shell commands can pass LLM agent dispatch guards

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Shell-command screening can miss harmful actions generated by coding agents. CARE combines static checks with optional model review at the command-dispatch boundary.

CARE: Pre-Execution Command Verification for Shell-Executing LLM Agents
Evaluated models: Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct, Granite Guardian 2B, Llama Guard 3 8B+1 more
  • Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
  • Granite Guardian 2B
  • Llama Guard 3 8B
  • GPT-oss Safeguard 20B

Lifecycle poisoning of reusable agent skills

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper presents SkillSec-Eval, a controlled evaluation of attacks against reusable agent skills across repository admission, semantic retrieval, planner selection, runtime execution, and updates. It reports that malicious metadata, retrieval manipulation, unsafe workflow composition, and poisoned updates can cause agents to retrieve, select, or execute unintended skills. These are paper-reported benchmark results, not independently verified vulnerabilities in a named production product.

Agent Skill Security: Threat Models, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluation
Evaluated models: all-MiniLM-L6-v2, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Gemini 1.5 Flash

Cross-Site Prompt Injection in Web Agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper defines Cross-Site Prompting (XSP): attacker-controlled text in reviews, posts, seller listings, advertisements, or embeds can be interpreted as instructions by a web agent and steer its browser actions. It evaluates three reproducible WebArena attack templates—Shortcut, Fake Completion, and Ignore Instruction—plus WASP and adaptive stress tests. This is an evaluated agent-security issue and mitigation, not a claimed production CVE.

Prismata: Confining Cross-Site Prompt Injection in Web Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-5.4, GPT-5.4-mini, GPT-5.4 Nano+4 more
  • GPT-5.4
  • GPT-5.4-mini
  • GPT-5.4 Nano
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • MiniMax M2.5

Agent Data Injection via Trusted-Metadata Spoofing

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Agent data injection (ADI) is a reproducible indirect injection class in which attacker-controlled external content is formatted to resemble trusted metadata or agent-context structure. The paper reports that probabilistic delimiter injection can cause agents to misinterpret untrusted content as trusted element IDs, author identities, or tool responses, leading to unintended clicks, command execution, or PR merges. Safe defensive reproduction should use the authors’ synthetic LLM/AgentDojo…

Agent Data Injection Attacks are Realistic Threats to AI Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, GPT-5 Mini, Claude Opus 4.5+3 more
  • GPT-5.2
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • Claude Opus 4.5
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Gemini 3 Pro
  • Gemini 3 Flash

GhostWriter Persistent Memory Poisoning in Tool-Using Agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper describes GhostWriter, a reproducible two-phase attack against tool-using agents with persistent memory: untrusted email or calendar content is admitted into long-term memory, then later retrieved during a benign user task and treated as trusted context. In the authors’ controlled evaluation, this could steer subsequent agent actions despite the adversary lacking direct access to the agent, memory store, account, or later prompt. The paper reports an average 98% memory-injection rate…

When Agents Remember Too Much: Memory Poisoning Attacks on Large Language Model Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-5.4-mini, DeepSeek V4 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Flash+1 more
  • GPT-5.4-mini
  • DeepSeek V4 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Llama 3.1 8B

Long-Term Memory Authority Laundering

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper describes a reproducible agent-memory poisoning issue: untrusted content stored in persistent memory can later influence consequential actions after its origin is laundered through agent summarization, trusted-tool echo, or manufactured corroboration. The paper reports that content scoring, lineage, and single-session capability/IFC defenses remain vulnerable because they decide authority from malleable content or derivation signals. This is a paper-reported evaluation; it was not…

Securing LLM-Agent Long-Term Memory Against Poisoning: Non-Malleable, Origin-Bound Authority with Machine-Checked Guarantees
Evaluated models: GPT-5 Chat, GPT-4o Mini, Claude Opus 4.1+5 more
  • GPT-5 Chat
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude Opus 4.1
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • DeepSeek Chat
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B

Automated indirect prompt injection against tool-calling agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper presents a concrete, reproducible security evaluation in which attacker-controlled instructions embedded in retrieved external content steer stateful, tool-calling LLM agents toward unauthorized actions. It adapts white-box GCG and black-box TAP to AgentDojo and evaluates single-task and task-universal attacks across 80 task pairs in four domains. The reported results show that semantic black-box optimization can discover functional prompt injections more effectively than…

Assessing Automated Prompt Injection Attacks in Agentic Environments
Evaluated models: Gemma3-4B Instruct, Qwen 3 4B Instruct, GPT-5+6 more
  • Gemma3-4B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 4B Instruct
  • GPT-5
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Qwen3-235B-A22B (MoE)
  • Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking (MoE)
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash

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.