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

406 entries

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

No-Prompt Reasoning Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An implicit reasoning hijacking vulnerability exists in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and LLM-based agent frameworks. Attackers with write access to an agent's external memory or knowledge base can inject adversarially optimized malicious instances that trigger jailbreaks without requiring any modifications to the user's input prompt. The attack utilizes a shadow model to extract high-contribution subword tokens from anticipated benign user queries via log-probability changes and…

Stop Fixating on Prompts: Reasoning Hijacking and Constraint Tightening for Red-Teaming LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-5+4 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Gemini 3.0 Pro
  • ERNIE 3.5

Indirect Agent Privilege Exposure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Autonomous LLM agents deployed in dynamic, multi-step tool-calling environments are highly vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injections (IPI) embedded in external content. Surface-level defensive prompts and monitoring mechanisms (such as Prompt Warning, the Sandwich Method, Spotlighting, Keyword Filtering, and LLM-as-a-Judge) consistently fail to prevent exploitation and occasionally exacerbate the vulnerability by introducing adversarial distraction. While compromised agents exhibit…

Your Agent is More Brittle Than You Think: Uncovering Indirect Injection Vulnerabilities in Agentic LLMs
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 14B, Qwen 2.5 32B, Qwen 3 4B+6 more
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • GLM 4 9B
  • Gemma 3 12B
  • Mistral 7B

Multi-Strategy Prompt Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in LLM input filtering mechanisms allows attackers to bypass keyword, semantic, and state-of-the-art intent-aware defenses using composite prompt injections. By combining Obfuscation (OBF) techniques with Semantic/Social manipulation—specifically Emotional Manipulation (EM) or Reward Framing (RF)—attackers exploit a "representation gap" between the model and the defense. The underlying LLM decodes the obfuscated payload, while the defense mechanisms fail to parse the raw…

AttackEval: A Systematic Empirical Study of Prompt Injection Attack Effectiveness Against Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Not reported

Agent Implicit Doc Execution

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based coding agents are vulnerable to Document-Driven Implicit Payload Execution (DDIPE) via supply-chain poisoning of third-party agent skills. Attackers can embed malicious logic directly into legitimate-looking code examples and configuration templates within skill documentation files (e.g., SKILL.md). Because coding agents ingest this metadata into their context windows and treat the documentation as an authoritative reference, the underlying LLM silently reproduces and executes the…

Supply-Chain Poisoning Attacks Against LLM Coding Agent Skill Ecosystems
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, GLM-4.7, MiniMax M2.5+2 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • GLM-4.7
  • MiniMax M2.5
  • GPT-5.4
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro

Observation Poisons Agent Memory

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Memory-augmented LLM web agents utilizing raw trajectory memory are vulnerable to Environment-injected Trajectory-based Agent Memory Poisoning (eTAMP). Attackers can embed malicious instructions within user-generated web content (e.g., product pages, forum posts). When the agent processes this content during a routine task, the instructions are passively ingested into its raw trajectory memory. During subsequent, entirely separate tasks on different websites, semantic retrieval mechanisms pull…

Poison Once, Exploit Forever: Environment-Injected Memory Poisoning Attacks on Web Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-5 Mini, GPT-5.2, GPT-oss 120B+3 more
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5.2
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B
  • Qwen3-VL-32B
  • Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Physical Infrared Semantic Disruption

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Infrared Vision-Language Models (IR-VLMs) allows attackers to systematically degrade open-ended semantic understanding—compromising classification, captioning, and Visual Question Answering (VQA)—via a physically deployable Universal Curved-Grid Patch (UCGP). Instead of manipulating explicit text labels, the attack disrupts the clean-category manifold in the model's visual representation space by maximizing orthogonal deviation energy from the principal subspace and forcing…

Revealing Physical-World Semantic Vulnerabilities: Universal Adversarial Patches for Infrared Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: InstructBLIP

Agent Skill Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based personal agents are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) defense bypasses via declarative context reframing and implicit file provenance trust. Attackers can bypass agent safety filters by phrasing malicious instructions as declarative compliance alerts rather than imperative commands. Because agents are designed to report discrepancies as expected behavior, declarative framing bypasses intent-sensitive safety mechanisms. Additionally, attackers can exploit the agent's…

ClawSafety: Safe LLMs, Unsafe Agents
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek V3+2 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Kimi K2.5
  • GPT-5.1

VLM Visual-Textual Misalignment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to pixel-level adversarial image perturbations. An attacker can inject $\ell_p$-bounded, human-imperceptible noise into an input image to manipulate the model's multi-modal embedding space. This reliably causes the VLM to generate incorrect textual responses, hallucinate non-existent objects, or misclassify subjects, effectively decoupling the model's reasoning from the actual visual evidence. The vulnerability is exploitable via both white-box…

PDA: Text-Augmented Defense Framework for Robust Vision-Language Models against Adversarial Image Attacks
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, LLaVA 1.5 13B, DeepSeek VL 1.3B+2 more
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • LLaVA 1.5 13B
  • DeepSeek VL 1.3B
  • InternVL3 2B
  • Ovis2 4B

Invisible Visual Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An imperceptible visual prompt injection vulnerability in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) allows attackers to execute precise command-hijacking via a Covert Triggered dual-Target Attack (CoTTA). By embedding a bounded, learnable textual overlay ($L_\infty$ norm bound $\varepsilon \le 16$) and adversarial noise into an input image, the attack forces the source image's internal feature representation to align with both the textual and visual embeddings of an attacker-specified…

Adversarial Prompt Injection Attack on Multimodal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5

LLM Judge Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Generative reward models deployed as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) evaluators contain a logic bypass vulnerability where superficial "master key" inputs trigger false positive rewards regardless of actual response quality. Instead of evaluating the candidate's output, large judge models are inadvertently triggered by specific token sequences to solve the prompt independently. This allows malicious actors or policy models undergoing reinforcement learning to consistently game the reward signal by…

Security in LLM-as-a-Judge: A Comprehensive SoK
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, o1, Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • o1
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct

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.