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

43 entries

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

Agent-as-a-Proxy Monitor Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Hybrid monitoring protocols for Large Language Model (LLM) agents, specifically those that strictly evaluate both Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and tool usage (such as LlamaFirewall's AlignmentCheck and Extract-and-Evaluate monitors), are vulnerable to "Agent-as-a-Proxy" indirect prompt injection attacks. Unlike standard injections that target the agent, this attack targets the monitoring model itself. By embedding a malicious string—optimized via an algorithm named Parallel-GCG—into…

Bypassing AI Control Protocols via Agent-as-a-Proxy Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

Activation Delta Detector Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Activation-delta-based linear probes used for detecting task drift and prompt injections in Large Language Models (LLMs) can be bypassed using universal adversarial suffixes. By utilizing the Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) algorithm, an attacker can generate a single, optimized suffix that simultaneously fools multiple logistic regression classifiers attached to different hidden layers of the LLM. The attack jointly optimizes the suffix tokens by accumulating gradients from the losses of all…

Bypassing Prompt Injection Detectors through Evasive Injections
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Phi-3 8B

Unified Robustness Gap

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Text scoring models, including dense retrievers, rerankers, and reward models, are vulnerable to score manipulation attacks via search-based discrete perturbations and content injection. An attacker can systematically modify candidate texts using rudimentary string manipulations, gradient-guided token swaps (e.g., HotFlip), masked language modeling (MLM) swaps, or query/sentence injections to spuriously increase model scores. This structural failure condition allows an irrelevant passage or a…

Unifying Adversarial Robustness and Training Across Text Scoring Models
Evaluated models: E5 BERT-base, Qwen 3 0.6B, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct+2 more
  • E5 BERT-base
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Skywork Reward V2

Payment Protocol Whisper Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Google Agent Payments Protocol (AP2), specifically within the reference implementation built using the Google Agent Development Kit (ADK) and Gemini models, contains vulnerabilities allowing for both indirect and direct prompt injection. The architecture fails to sufficiently isolate the Large Language Model (LLM) context from untrusted external data sources and user inputs.

Whispers of Wealth: Red-Teaming Google's Agent Payments Protocol via Prompt Injection
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash

Persona Adherence Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed as Role-Playing Agents (RPAs) are vulnerable to Persona-Targeted Jailbreaks. When an LLM is prompted to adopt a persona—particularly characters with negative, risky, or villainous traits—the model's optimization for role fidelity frequently overrides its foundational safety alignment. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability by synthesizing queries that leverage the specific narrative background, ideology, or psychological vulnerabilities of the assigned…

Stay in Character, Stay Safe: Dual-Cycle Adversarial Self-Evolution for Safety Role-Playing Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 9B

Personalization Intent Legitimation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Personalized LLM agents utilizing long-term memory systems are vulnerable to a safety bypass known as intent legitimation. Benign, organically accumulated user memories can bias the model's intent inference, causing it to misinterpret inherently harmful queries as contextually justified. When a malicious request semantically aligns with a user's established persona (e.g., hobbies, mental health history, routine), the model normalizes the request and complies, effectively bypassing standard…

When Personalization Legitimizes Risks: Uncovering Safety Vulnerabilities in Personalized Dialogue Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, DeepSeek V3.2+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • Qwen 3 8B

Activation-Level Privacy Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Conversational Large Language Model (LLM) agents integrated with privileged data sources (e.g., medical records, organizational emails) are vulnerable to contextually inappropriate information disclosure due to failures in enforcing Contextual Integrity (CI) norms. Standard semantic input/output filters and generic safety guardrails (e.g., Llama Guard) fail to detect "mosaic attacks" and multi-turn conversational manipulation. In these attacks, adversaries decompose a malicious query into a…

NeuroFilter: Privacy Guardrails for Conversational LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 7B+3 more
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 72B

Dangerous Medical Faithfulness

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) where in-context information (e.g., provided via Retrieval-Augmented Generation) completely overrides parametric safety guardrails when processing counterfactual or adversarial medical evidence. When a prompt contains fabricated clinical context asserting the medical efficacy of toxic substances, illicit drugs, or nonsensical items, the LLM suppresses its internal knowledge of the substance's toxicity. Internal representation…

Faithfulness vs. Safety: Evaluating LLM Behavior Under Counterfactual Medical Evidence
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5 Mini, HuatuoGPT-o1-7B+6 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • HuatuoGPT-o1-7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
  • Llama 4 Maverick 17B Instruct
  • OLMo 3 7B Instruct
  • OLMo 3 7B Think
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Distractor Inverse Scaling

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Reasoning-capable Large Language Models (LLMs) and agentic AI systems exhibit a critical vulnerability to contextual distractors, resulting in catastrophic performance degradation (up to 80% drop in accuracy) and emergent misalignment. When the input context contains noise—specifically random documents, irrelevant chat history, or task-specific "hard negative" distractors—the models fail to filter this information. Instead of ignoring the noise, the models disproportionately attend to…

Lost in the Noise: How Reasoning Models Fail with Contextual Distractors
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek R1 0528+4 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • DeepSeek R1 0528
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Qwen 3 4B Thinking 2507
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B Thinking 2507

Tool Stream Injection Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing external tool execution frameworks are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) via the "Tool Stream." Unlike traditional data-stream injections (e.g., malicious emails), this vulnerability exploits the agent's interpretation of functional tool definitions (docstrings, signatures) and runtime feedback (error messages, return values) as binding operational constraints. Adversaries functioning as compromised or malicious tool providers can embed…

VIGIL: Defending LLM Agents Against Tool Stream Injection via Verify-Before-Commit
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, Qwen 3 Max

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.