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

88 entries

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

Visual Confused Deputy Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A "Visual Confused Deputy" vulnerability exists in Computer-Using Agents (CUAs) that rely on visual perception to execute coordinate-based GUI actions (e.g., click(x,y)). Because the agent's understanding of the system state is entirely dependent on the screenshot provided by the runtime, a compromised runtime or tool can intercept and alter the screenshot pixels before forwarding them to the LLM. By visually swapping the locations of benign and privileged UI elements, an attacker can trick…

Visual Confused Deputy: Exploiting and Defending Perception Failures in Computer-Using Agents
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet

MLLM Multi-Paradigm Collaborative

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-Modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to a highly transferable, black-box adversarial image attack known as the Multi-Paradigm Collaborative Attack (MPCAttack). Attackers can craft imperceptible visual perturbations by jointly aggregating and optimizing semantic feature representations extracted from surrogate models across three distinct learning paradigms: cross-modal alignment (e.g., CLIP), multi-modal understanding (e.g., InternVL3), and visual self-supervised learning…

Multi-Paradigm Collaborative Adversarial Attack Against Multi-Modal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, InternVL3 8B, LLaVA 1.5 7B+3 more
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • InternVL3 8B
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • GLM-4.1V 9B Thinking
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5

Indirect Prompt Injection Hijacks Tool-Using Agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper evaluates a reproducible indirect prompt injection issue in ReAct-style LLM agents: untrusted retrieved content can be interpreted as instructions and redirect the agent toward unauthorized tool calls. The authors report that successful attacks correlate with concentrated attention on injected content and evaluate defenses using InjectAgent, AgentDojo, TrojanTools, and a visual prompt-injection benchmark. These are paper-reported findings, not independently verified facts.

ICON: Indirect Prompt Injection Defense for Agents based on Inference-Time Correction
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 8B, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 8B+3 more
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 8B
  • Qwen3VL
  • InternVL
  • MiniCPM

Discrete Token Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Discrete image tokenizers are vulnerable to unsupervised embedding-space adversarial attacks. Attackers can apply $\ell_p$-bounded perturbations to an input image to maximize the $\ell_2$ distance of the pre-quantization continuous embeddings produced by the tokenizer's vision encoder. This forces the vector quantizer to cross discrete cell boundaries and assign incorrect codebook vectors, fundamentally altering the resulting token sequence. Because the attack targets the pre-quantization…

On the Adversarial Robustness of Discrete Image Tokenizers
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B

Visual Memory Multi-Turn Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to Visual Memory Injection (VMI), a stealthy targeted attack targeting multi-turn conversations. An attacker can embed an imperceptible adversarial perturbation ($L_\infty \le 8/255$) into a seemingly benign image. Because the visual input persists in the model's context throughout a multi-turn dialogue, the injected payload remains dormant. By utilizing "benign anchoring" and "context-cycling" during optimization, the attacker ensures the…

Visual Memory Injection Attacks for Multi-Turn Conversations
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, Qwen3-VL 8B Instruct, LLaVA-OneVision 1.5 8B Instruct+2 more
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen3-VL 8B Instruct
  • LLaVA-OneVision 1.5 8B Instruct
  • Qwen-SEA-LION v4 8B VL
  • QoQ-Med3-VL 8B

Reward Hacking Via Adversarial Imitation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the post-training alignment of Flow Matching models (specifically FLUX.1-dev) when utilizing Visual Foundation Models (VFM) (e.g., DINOv3b) as discriminators or when employing standalone Reward Gradient optimization (e.g., HPSv3). These feedback mechanisms lack sufficient capacity or structural guidance to constrain the generative policy, making the discriminator's gradients susceptible to "reward hacking." Consequently, the generative policy over-optimizes for the…

FAIL: Flow Matching Adversarial Imitation Learning for Image Generation
Evaluated models: Not reported

Semantic Ensembles Fool CLIP

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) models are vulnerable to semantic-ensemble adversarial attacks. Current adversarial fine-tuning defenses for CLIP rely on minimizing the cosine similarity between an image and a single hand-crafted template (e.g., "A photo of a {label}"). This creates a vulnerability where adversarial examples (AEs) overfit to specific phrasings rather than the core class semantics. Attackers can bypass these defenses by generating semantic-aware adversarial…

Semantic-aware Adversarial Fine-tuning for CLIP
Evaluated models: CLIP ViT-B/32

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

Enhanced LVLM Encoder Transfer

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to zero-query, black-box adversarial image perturbations via Semantic-Guided Multimodal Attacks (SGMA). Unlike traditional attacks that scatter noise or target background pixels, SGMA leverages surrogate models (e.g., CLIP) to anchor imperceptible adversarial perturbations directly onto semantically critical foreground regions. The attack exploits two specific architectural traits of LVLMs: inconsistent visual grounding across models and…

Grounding-Driven Attack: Improving Encoder-based Adversarial Transferability against Large Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: BLIP-2 OPT 2.7B, LLaVA 1.5 7B, Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct+6 more
  • BLIP-2 OPT 2.7B
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • InternVL3 8B
  • OpenFlamingo 4B
  • Kimi VL A3B Instruct
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5.4
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash

Voice Agent Behavioral Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Audio Large Language Models (ALLMs) integrated into voice agent systems for high-stakes domains (banking, IT support, logistics) are vulnerable to multimodal adversarial attacks via spoken interaction. Adversaries can exploit the model's inherent compliance and contextual awareness through multi-turn dialogue to bypass authentication safeguards, escalate privileges (e.g., unauthorized credit limit increases), exfiltrate sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and poison…

Aegis: Towards Governance, Integrity, and Security of AI Voice Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 1.5 Pro+4 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Qwen2-Audio 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 Omni 7B

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.