Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed 8/13/2026

Language Model Security Database

969 research findings · 1102 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

465 entries

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

Published 4/1/2026
Analyzed 4/10/2026

A vulnerability in LLM parameter-space merging algorithms enables a latent supply-chain attack where adversaries embed pre-computed malicious weight perturbations into open-source models. Using a constrained optimization framework, attackers inject latent components into the Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) up-projection matrices of source models. These perturbations are mathematically constrained to preserve the source model's individual safety alignment (via directional consistency) and benign…

When Safe Models Merge into Danger: Exploiting Latent Vulnerabilities in LLM Fusion
Evaluated models: Tulu-2-7B, Llama 3.1 Tulu 3 8B DPO, OpenChat 3.5 0106

Source: arXiv

Published 4/1/2026
Analyzed 4/11/2026

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

Source: arXiv

Published 4/1/2026
Analyzed 4/10/2026

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…

Cooking Up Risks: Benchmarking and Reducing Food Safety Risks in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1 +8 more

Source: arXiv

Published 4/1/2026
Analyzed 4/11/2026

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

Source: arXiv

Published 4/1/2026
Analyzed 4/10/2026

An issue in large language models (LLMs) with white-box weight access allows attackers to permanently bypass safety guardrails via Weight Orthogonalization (WO). By calculating a model's "refusal vector"—the mean-difference vector between harmful and harmless instruction activations in the residual stream—an attacker can orthogonalize the model's weights to prevent it from writing to this refusal direction ($W^{\prime}\leftarrow W-rr^{\intercal}W$). Unlike jailbreak-tuning or data poisoning…

Understanding the Effects of Safety Unalignment on Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 4B Instruct 2507, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 14B +3 more

Source: arXiv

Published 3/1/2026
Analyzed 4/10/2026

An activation-space adversarial attack, termed "Amnesia", allows an attacker with white-box access to bypass the safety mechanisms of open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs) at inference time without requiring fine-tuning, weight modifications, or prompt manipulation. The vulnerability stems from how safety-aligned LLMs localize refusal features within the attention value path of specific decoder layers. An attacker can extract an attack vector ($\mathbf{V}_i$) by hooking the attention value…

Amnesia: Adversarial Semantic Layer Specific Activation Steering in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Source: arXiv

Published 3/1/2026
Analyzed 4/11/2026

GPT-OSS-Safeguard-20B and Meta-SecAlign (70B/8B) are vulnerable to white-box adversarial attacks generated by automated algorithmic recombination (specifically the claude_v63, claude_v82, and claude_v53-oss optimizers). These algorithms significantly outperform standard discrete optimization methods (like GCG) by integrating continuous optimization (ADC) with LayerNorm gradient scaling (LSGM), or by merging momentum-smoothed gradients with directional perturbation candidate selection (DPTO)…

Claudini: Autoresearch Discovers State-of-the-Art Adversarial Attack Algorithms for LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B +2 more

Source: arXiv

Published 3/1/2026
Analyzed 4/10/2026

A compositional vulnerability in modular Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety alignment by distributing malicious weight updates across multiple Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) adapters (e.g., LoRA). The malicious adapters are anchored to valid functional subspaces (e.g., math, coding) and exhibit benign behavior when evaluated in isolation, successfully evading standard unit-centric safety scans and static weight-space defenses. However, when a user linearly…

Colluding LoRA: A Composite Attack on LLM Safety Alignment
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B, Gemma 2 2B

Source: arXiv

Published 3/1/2026
Analyzed 4/10/2026

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreak technique termed "Priority Hacking." Adversaries can bypass safety alignments by exploiting the model's internal priority graph, where certain abstract values (e.g., justice, public health) implicitly outweigh general safety restrictions within specific contexts. By crafting a deceptive prompt that frames a malicious request as a necessary action in service of a higher-priority benign value, attackers engineer a value conflict. The…

Are Dilemmas and Conflicts in LLM Alignment Solvable? A View from Priority Graph
Evaluated models: Not reported

Source: arXiv

Published 3/1/2026
Analyzed 4/10/2026

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…

IndicSafe: A Benchmark for Evaluating Multilingual LLM Safety in South Asia
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Claude Sonnet 4, Grok 3 +6 more

Source: arXiv

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.