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

670 entries

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

Maladaptive Therapeutic Reinforcement

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned for helpfulness and empathy are vulnerable to a Persona-based Client Simulation Attack (PCSA) that exploits the model's inability to distinguish therapeutic empathy from maladaptive validation. By embedding harmful intents within coherent, multi-turn psychological counseling narratives and employing clinical resistance strategies (such as intellectualization or metaphorical expression), attackers can compel the model to prioritize rapport-building over…

Do No Harm: Exposing Hidden Vulnerabilities of LLMs via Persona-based Client Simulation Attack in Psychological Counseling
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-5.1, Llama 3.1 8B+5 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-5.1
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Crispers 7B
  • Psycho 8B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B

Agent Implicit Doc Execution

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based coding agents are vulnerable to Document-Driven Implicit Payload Execution (DDIPE) via supply-chain poisoning of third-party agent skills. Attackers can embed malicious logic directly into legitimate-looking code examples and configuration templates within skill documentation files (e.g., SKILL.md). Because coding agents ingest this metadata into their context windows and treat the documentation as an authoritative reference, the underlying LLM silently reproduces and executes the…

Supply-Chain Poisoning Attacks Against LLM Coding Agent Skill Ecosystems
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, GLM-4.7, MiniMax M2.5+2 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • GLM-4.7
  • MiniMax M2.5
  • GPT-5.4
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro

Jailbreak Saturates Alignment Defenses

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A cognitive overload vulnerability in OpenAI gpt-oss-20b allows attackers to bypass instruction hierarchy and deliberative alignment safety mechanisms using "Compound Jailbreaks." By combining multiple non-contradictory but cognitively demanding tasks within a single prompt, the attack saturates the finite reasoning resources allocated for safety judgments. Because the model's safety training relies on probabilistic redistribution rather than capability elimination, this cognitive exhaustion…

Generalization Limits of Reinforcement Learning Alignment
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B

Semantic Masking Image Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multiple Text-to-Image (T2I) generation systems and their associated multi-stage moderation pipelines are vulnerable to low-effort semantic obfuscation attacks. Attackers can systematically bypass Input Compliance Checks (ICC), Semantic Safety Checks (SSC), and Post-Generation Moderation (PGM) by embedding restricted concepts into benign natural language contexts. By utilizing techniques such as Material Substitution, Artistic Reframing, Pseudo-Educational Framing, and Ambiguous Action…

Low-Effort Jailbreak Attacks Against Text-to-Image Safety Filters
Evaluated models: Sora, Stable Diffusion v1.4

Weight Orthogonalization Attack Empowerment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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
  • Qwen 3 4B Instruct 2507
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Qwen 3 4B Thinking 2507
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 14B

Merging Latent Malice

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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

Unsafe Culinary Instructions

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • GLM-4 32B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Mistral Small 4
  • Qwen3Guard
  • Llama Guard 4

LLM Judge Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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…

Security in LLM-as-a-Judge: A Comprehensive SoK
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, o1, Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • o1
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct

Zero-Tax Fine-Tune Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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…

Trojan-Speak: Bypassing Constitutional Classifiers with No Jailbreak Tax via Adversarial Finetuning
Evaluated models: Claude Haiku 4.5, Qwen 3 4B, Qwen 3 8B+2 more
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Qwen 3 32B

Agentic Robot Instruction Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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…

SABER: A Stealthy Agentic Black-Box Attack Framework for Vision-Language-Action Models
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.