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

104 entries

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

Invisible Visual Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An imperceptible visual prompt injection vulnerability in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) allows attackers to execute precise command-hijacking via a Covert Triggered dual-Target Attack (CoTTA). By embedding a bounded, learnable textual overlay ($L_\infty$ norm bound $\varepsilon \le 16$) and adversarial noise into an input image, the attack forces the source image's internal feature representation to align with both the textual and visual embeddings of an attacker-specified…

Adversarial Prompt Injection Attack on Multimodal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5

X-Shaped Sparse VLM Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) relying on shared visual-textual representation spaces allows attackers to induce transferable cross-task semantic failures using an X-shaped Sparse Pixel Attack (XSPA). Attackers craft imperceptible adversarial perturbations restricted to a fixed geometric prior—two intersecting diagonal lines comprising approximately 1.76% of the image pixels. By jointly optimizing a classification objective with cross-task semantic guidance (target-semantic…

XSPA: Crafting Imperceptible X-Shaped Sparse Adversarial Perturbations for Transferable Attacks on VLMs
Evaluated models: InstructBLIP

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

VLM Image-Shift Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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…

Understanding and Defending VLM Jailbreaks via Jailbreak-Related Representation Shift
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, ShareGPT4V 7B, InternVL-Chat 19B

VLM E-commerce Attack Surface

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLaVA-v1.5-7B, when deployed as a vision-language autonomous agent, is highly vulnerable to adversarial image perturbations. An attacker can inject imperceptibly modified images into a web environment (such as an e-commerce storefront). When the VLM agent captures a screenshot containing the perturbed image, the visual noise forces the model to misclassify the scene and output incorrect, structured JSON actions. This allows an attacker to hijack the agent's task execution, bypassing the user's…

Adversarial attacks against Modern Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, LLaVA 1.5 7B

Reasoning-Oriented Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the compositional reasoning architecture of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) allows attackers to bypass multimodal safety alignments using a technique known as Reasoning-Oriented Programming (ROP). Current safety mechanisms primarily target explicit malicious patterns at the perception level (early layers). This vulnerability exploits late-stage reasoning by decomposing a harmful objective into a set of spatially isolated, semantically benign visual "gadgets". Because…

Reasoning-Oriented Programming: Chaining Semantic Gadgets to Jailbreak Large Vision Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct, LLaVA v1.6 Mistral 7B, Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct+4 more
  • Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct
  • LLaVA v1.6 Mistral 7B
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • GLM-4V Plus
  • Qwen-VL Plus

Assembling Malice From Benign

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A semantic slot filling vulnerability in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety filters and elicit prohibited content via a single query. The attack, known as StructAttack, decomposes a harmful instruction into a central topic and locally benign-appearing semantic slot types (e.g., "Raw Materials", "Making Process"). These individual slots are embedded into structured visual prompts (such as mind maps, tables, or sunburst diagrams) alongside harmless distractor…

Models as Lego Builders: Assembling Malice from Benign Blocks via Semantic Blueprints
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Flash 001, Gemini 2.5 Flash+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash 001
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Qwen3-VL Flash
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • InternVL3 9B

Two-Frame Infilling Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A temporal trajectory infilling vulnerability in Text-to-Video (T2V) generative models allows attackers to bypass input and output safety filters to generate policy-violating content. The vulnerability is exploited using a fragmented prompting technique known as Two Frames Matter (TFM). An attacker submits a prompt that specifies only sparse boundary conditions (the start and end frames) using semantically suggestive but lexically benign alternatives, entirely omitting the intermediate action…

Two Frames Matter: A Temporal Attack for Text-to-Video Model Jailbreaking
Evaluated models: Not reported

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

Inter-Turn Modality Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to alignment bypass via Inter-Turn Modality Switching (ITMS). By systematically rotating the input modality (e.g., alternating between text, audio, and image) across successive turns in a multi-turn adversarial conversation, an attacker can destabilize the model's safety defenses. The cross-modal transition mechanism exploits alignment gaps between differing input processing pipelines, accelerating the erosion of safety guardrails and…

MUSE: A Run-Centric Platform for Multimodal Unified Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 3 Flash Preview, GPT-4o+1 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 3 Flash Preview
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude Sonnet 4

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.