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

87 entries

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

Multi-Image Semantic Reconstruction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety alignments via Multi-Image Dispersion and Semantic Reconstruction (MIDAS). Attackers decompose malicious instructions into risk-bearing semantic subunits, fragment them, and distribute them across multiple benign-looking Game-style Visual Reasoning (GVR) puzzles (e.g., Letter Equations, Rank-and-Read, Odd-One-Out). A sanitized, persona-driven textual prompt with sequential placeholders is then used to…

MIDAS: Multi-Image Dispersion and Semantic Reconstruction for Jailbreaking MLLMs
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash Thinking, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4o+2 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash Thinking
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5 Chat
  • QVQ-Max

Safety Guidance Harm Collision

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in multi-category safety-guidance mechanisms (such as Safe Latent Diffusion [SLD] and SAFREE) for Text-to-Image (T2I) diffusion models allows attackers to bypass safety filters and generate restricted content via "Harmful Conflicts." Existing safety methods aggregate multiple harmful keyword categories (e.g., hate, violence, sexual) into a single unified safety direction in the latent or text space. Because distinct harmful categories possess incompatible safety directions…

When Safety Collides: Resolving Multi-Category Harmful Conflicts in Text-to-Image Diffusion via Adaptive Safety Guidance
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Stable Diffusion

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

Multi-Modal Expansion Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to multi-turn, multi-modal jailbreak attacks where malicious intent is incrementally introduced and obfuscated through intertwined text and image prompts. Attackers can systematically bypass safety alignments by starting with self-optimized, benign-seeming conversation starters (horizontal expansion) and progressively stacking text and image attack augmentations across multiple conversation turns (vertical expansion). Furthermore, models fail…

FERRET: Framework for Expansion Reliant Red Teaming
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude 3 Haiku, Llama 4 Maverick

Vision-Text Adaptive Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety guardrails via a Multi-Turn Adaptive Prompting Attack (MAPA). Instead of triggering safety mechanisms with an immediate, explicit malicious request, the attacker iteratively injects malicious intent across multiple conversation turns by alternating between text and visual modalities. At each turn, the attack dynamically tests three prompt configurations (unconnected text only, unconnected text + malicious…

Multi-Turn Adaptive Prompting Attack on Large Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.2 11B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.2 11B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

Early Reasoning Safety Degradation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Reinforcement learning (RL) based post-training for explicit chain-of-thought reasoning (e.g., GRPO) in Multimodal Large Reasoning Models (MLRMs) inadvertently degrades safety alignment, rendering the models highly vulnerable to multimodal jailbreak attacks. The vulnerability is caused by "conditional coverage collapse" during the initial phases of chain-of-thought generation. Under adversarial conditioning (text or image), the reasoning policy assigns vanishing probability mass to safe…

Safety Recovery in Reasoning Models Is Only a Few Early Steering Steps Away
Evaluated models: R1-Onevision 7B, OpenVLThinker 7B, VLAA-Thinker 7B+3 more
  • R1-Onevision 7B
  • OpenVLThinker 7B
  • VLAA-Thinker 7B
  • Vision-R1 7B
  • LlamaV-o1
  • LLaVA-CoT

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

Image Editing Visual Prompt Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Image Editing Models (LIEMs) supporting vision-prompt editing are vulnerable to Vision-Centric Jailbreak Attacks (VJA). This vulnerability arises from a modality mismatch in safety alignment: while safeguards primarily analyze textual instructions for policy violations, the underlying models are capable of interpreting and executing instructions embedded directly within the visual input (e.g., typographic text drawn on the image, arrows, symbols, or specific markings). An attacker can…

When the Prompt Becomes Visual: Vision-Centric Jailbreak Attacks for Large Image Editing Models
Evaluated models: GPT Image 1.5, Gemini 3 Pro Image, Seedream 4.5+5 more
  • GPT Image 1.5
  • Gemini 3 Pro Image
  • Seedream 4.5
  • Qwen-Image-Edit-2512
  • Qwen-Image-Edit-Safe
  • BAGEL 14B
  • Flux 2.0 Dev 32B
  • LongCat-Image-Edit

Adaptive Web Agent Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) based web agents (such as those built using the BrowserUse scaffold) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attacks when autonomously navigating and processing untrusted web content. Unlike standard Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), this vulnerability occurs when the LLM orchestrator consumes the DOM or visual screenshots of a webpage containing concealed or contextually disguised adversarial instructions. The LLM interprets these embedded text strings as…

MUZZLE: Adaptive Agentic Red-Teaming of Web Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4o, Qwen3-VL 32B Instruct

Cross-Modal Entanglement Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in advanced Vision-Language Models (VLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety alignment mechanisms via a Cross-Modal Entanglement Attack (COMET). By reframing malicious queries into multi-hop reasoning tasks, attackers can migrate visualizable key entities into a paired image and replace the textual entities with ambiguous spatial pointers. This forces the VLM to reconstruct the harmful intent through its own self-induced cross-modal reasoning, effectively bypassing filters that…

Red-teaming the Multimodal Reasoning: Jailbreaking Vision-Language Models via Cross-modal Entanglement Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 Mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash+6 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct
  • GLM-4.5V
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Claude Haiku 4.5

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.