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

133 entries

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

Frontier LLM Safety Collapse

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Internal Safety Collapse (ISC) is a vulnerability in frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) where models autonomously generate highly restricted, harmful content while executing structurally legitimate professional workflows. The vulnerability triggers when a model infers that generating sensitive data is a functional requirement to complete an otherwise benign task. By nesting harmful content generation inside standard execution constraints (e.g., resolving a schema validation error in a…

Internal Safety Collapse in Frontier Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Gemini 3 Pro, Grok 4.1 Fast, Claude Sonnet 4.5+1 more
  • Gemini 3 Pro
  • Grok 4.1 Fast
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • GPT-5.2

Embodied Action Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Embodied Large Language Models (LLMs) used for real-world agent planning are vulnerable to Action-level Manipulation (dubbed "Blindfold"), a jailbreak technique that bypasses semantic-level safety filters by exploiting the models' limited spatial and causal reasoning regarding physical consequences. Attackers can use an adversarial proxy LLM to decompose a semantically harmful intent into a sequence of individually benign primitive actions. To evade advanced semantic correlation checks…

Jailbreaking Embodied LLMs via Action-level Manipulation
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o Mini+5 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 14B
  • Gemma 3 27B IT
  • Phi-4 14B

Social Bot Exposure Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-powered automated social media accounts (bots) are vulnerable to prompt injection via public user replies. When an automated bot scrapes and processes social media engagement to generate responses, an attacker can submit an instruction-override command within a direct reply. Because the underlying LLM fails to isolate its core system instructions (e.g., maintaining a specific political persona) from untrusted user input, the injected command hijacks the model's context window. This forces…

Ignore All Previous Instructions: Jailbreaking as a de-escalatory peace building practise to resist LLM social media bots
Evaluated models: Not reported

Natural Language Disguise Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based Code Interpreter Agents, including OpenInterpreter and OpenCodeInterpreter, are vulnerable to sandbox evasion and arbitrary code execution via Natural Language Disguise and Contextual Channel Injection. Attackers can bypass Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) static analysis and explicit input guardrails by transforming malicious code logic into descriptive natural language instructions (Code Descriptions), which successfully evade syntax-layer blocks. Additionally, attackers can bypass input…

CIBER: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Security Evaluation of Code Interpreter Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, GPT-5

TEE Advisor Hallucination

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based security advisors exhibit systematic reasoning failures—including boundary confusion, attestation overclaiming, and mitigation hallucination—when providing architectural guidance for Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) like Intel SGX and Arm TrustZone. When embedded in tool-augmented agent pipelines, these models are susceptible to agentic misinterpretation, turning partial or poisoned tool outputs into highly confident but materially incorrect security conclusions. This…

Red-Teaming Claude Opus and ChatGPT-based Security Advisors for Trusted Execution Environments
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6

Agent Tool-Call Safety Gap

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM agents with tool-calling capabilities are vulnerable to a text-action modality divergence (termed the "GAP" vulnerability), where text-level safety alignment fails to transfer to tool-call execution. Attackers can craft adversarial prompts that cause the model to generate a text-based refusal (demonstrating text safety) while simultaneously executing the requested forbidden action through available external tools. Because text generation and tool-call selection operate through partially…

Mind the GAP: Text Safety Does Not Transfer to Tool-Call Safety in LLM Agents
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5.2, Grok 4.1 Fast+3 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • GPT-5.2
  • Grok 4.1 Fast
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • Kimi K2.5
  • GLM-4.7

Long-Horizon Agent Attacks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM agents equipped with tool-use, persistent memory, and environmental interaction capabilities are vulnerable to long-horizon attacks. Attackers can bypass single-turn safety guardrails by exploiting the temporal dimension of multi-turn interactions to incrementally steer agent behavior. The vulnerability manifests because the agent's safety mechanisms perform localized, single-step evaluations but fail to maintain semantic safety across extended interaction trajectories. This enables…

AgentLAB: Benchmarking LLM Agents against Long-Horizon Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Flash+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5.1
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5

Automated Stealth Skill Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in LLM-based coding agents that implement modular capability extensions (often referred to as "Agent Skills") where the agent dynamically loads and executes user-provided skill packages. The vulnerability allows for Skill-Based Prompt Injection, specifically leveraging a technique known as "SkillJect." This attack decouples the malicious intent from the operational payload to bypass semantic safety filters. An attacker constructs a skill package containing: 1. Inducement…

SkillJect: Effectively Automating Skill-Based Prompt Injection for Skill-Enabled Agents
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5 Mini, GLM-4.7+7 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GLM-4.7
  • MiniMax M2.1
  • DeepSeek V4 Flash
  • GLM-5.1
  • MiniMax M2.7
  • MiMo V2.7
  • GPT-5.4
  • Claude Opus 4.6

LLM Guardrail Benchmark Lies

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Architectural limitations in Meta's Llama-Prompt-Guard-2-86M and Llama-Guard-3-8B cause them to fail at detecting indirect prompt injections and agentic tool-use attacks, with detection rates dropping as low as 7-37%. Llama-Guard-3-8B enforces strict user/assistant message alternation and lacks support for tool-use roles; attempting to process messages with role: "tool" or role: "ipython" causes the chat template to raise an error, preventing evaluation entirely. PromptGuard 2 operates…

When Benchmarks Lie: Evaluating Malicious Prompt Classifiers Under True Distribution Shift
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Llama 3.1 8B

Mobile Agent Visual Spoofing

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Mobile Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating under the "Screen-as-Interface" paradigm are vulnerable to visual indirect prompt injection and state desynchronization. Agents that rely on unstructured visual data (screenshots) and Accessibility Service APIs to perceive the environment lack a mechanism to distinguish between trusted system UI elements and untrusted content (e.g., web pages, emails, or malicious overlays). An attacker can inject visual cues, fake notifications, or hidden…

Blind Gods and Broken Screens: Architecting a Secure, Intent-Centric Mobile Agent Operating System
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.