Language Model Security Database

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to system instruction leakage when extraction requests are framed as benign formatting, encoding, or structured-output tasks. While standard alignment and refusal mechanisms successfully block direct queries for system instructions, they fail when attackers request the instructions to be rendered in alternate representations (e.g., YAML, TOML, Base64, or system logs). The model's safety filters misinterpret the request as a harmless transformation or…

State-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) and safety guardrails lack domain-specific safety alignment for food science, making them vulnerable to generating actionable, hazardous food safety instructions. Attackers can exploit this alignment sparsity using canonical jailbreak techniques (such as AutoDAN and Persuasive Adversarial Prompting) or direct adversarial prompting to bypass generic safety filters. This allows malicious actors to elicit harmful guidance that violates fundamental FDA…

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…

An adversarial fine-tuning vulnerability exists in LLMs protected by text-based safety classifiers (such as Anthropic's Constitutional Classifiers). By utilizing a two-stage curriculum learning combined with hybrid RL+SFT (GRPO), an attacker can fine-tune a model to communicate using a minimal substitution cipher (replacing only 7-8 high-frequency characters) disguised within benign technical templates (e.g., forensic logs with 0x prefixes). This "Trojan-Speak" methodology bypasses text-level…

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are vulnerable to targeted, low-budget textual perturbations in their natural-language instruction inputs, which can maliciously alter sequential decision-making and downstream physical robotic behavior. Because VLA policies tightly couple language, perception, and control, bounded edits—such as character-level typos, token attribute swaps, or prompt-level uncertainty clauses—propagate through the model's execution trajectory. This allows a black-box…

Transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to highly query-efficient black-box jailbreak attacks due to the structural properties of refusal behaviors: skewed token contribution and cross-model consistency. Refusal mechanisms within LLMs are typically triggered by a sparse subset of sensitive tokens rather than the entire prompt, and these refusal representations (specifically the primary left singular vector of the perturbed representation matrix at intermediate layers) are…

A multi-step tool execution vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing the Model Context Protocol (MCP) or similar tool-calling frameworks. Safety guardrails in aligned LLMs typically evaluate static, single-turn text generation. Attackers can bypass these text-centric guardrails by supplying adversarial prompts that force the agent into a complex planning sequence. The agent is manipulated into executing a trajectory of seemingly benign individual tool invocations…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to automated long-tail distribution attacks that exploit their instruction-following and code-execution capabilities to bypass safety alignments. Attackers can obfuscate malicious queries using a semantic-algorithmic representation, embedding the query within reversible encryption-decryption logic (e.g., sequence re-grouping, conditional branching, or index-dependent operations). By providing the model with the encrypted query and the corresponding…

Leading Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit significant cross-lingual safety drift, allowing users to bypass safety guardrails by translating harmful prompts into low-resource Indic languages. While models effectively block unsafe prompts concerning caste, religion, gender, and politics in high-resource languages like English and Hindi, their safety alignment severely degrades in low-resource scripts such as Odia, Telugu, Kannada, and Punjabi. Evaluated models demonstrate a cross-language…

The integration of the visual modality in Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) introduces a vulnerability where appending an image to a harmful text prompt induces a "jailbreak-related representation shift" in the model's internal high-dimensional space. This shift forcibly steers the model's last-token hidden state away from a designated refusal state and into a distinct jailbreak state. The vulnerability occurs because the visual modality overrides the safety alignment of the underlying…