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

180 entries

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

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

Colluding LoRA Emergent Harm

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A compositional vulnerability in modular Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety alignment by distributing malicious weight updates across multiple Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) adapters (e.g., LoRA). The malicious adapters are anchored to valid functional subspaces (e.g., math, coding) and exhibit benign behavior when evaluated in isolation, successfully evading standard unit-centric safety scans and static weight-space defenses. However, when a user linearly…

Colluding LoRA: A Composite Attack on LLM Safety Alignment
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B, Gemma 2 2B

Prompt Length Exponential Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in safety-aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to achieve an exponentially scaling Attack Success Rate (ASR) for jailbreaks by combining adversarial prompt injection with repeated inference-time sampling. While ASR against un-injected prompts scales polynomially with the number of generated samples ($k$), introducing a long adversarial suffix acts as a strong "misalignment field." This shifts the model's generation distribution into a replica-symmetric ordered…

Jailbreak Scaling Laws for Large Language Models: Polynomial-Exponential Crossover
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.5 20250929, Claude 3.5 Haiku 20241022, GPT 3.5-turbo-0125+7 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5 20250929
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku 20241022
  • GPT 3.5-turbo-0125
  • GPT-4 0613
  • GPT-4.5 Preview
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • OLMo 2 0325 32B Instruct
  • OLMo 3.1 32B Instruct

Amnesia Activation Steering Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An activation-space adversarial attack, termed "Amnesia", allows an attacker with white-box access to bypass the safety mechanisms of open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs) at inference time without requiring fine-tuning, weight modifications, or prompt manipulation. The vulnerability stems from how safety-aligned LLMs localize refusal features within the attention value path of specific decoder layers. An attacker can extract an attack vector ($\mathbf{V}_i$) by hooking the attention value…

Amnesia: Adversarial Semantic Layer Specific Activation Steering in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Drive Overrides Refusal

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A prompt structure vulnerability exists in instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) where attackers can bypass safety alignments by injecting a continuation-triggering suffix immediately following the user prompt termination token. By placing an affirmative suffix outside the user instruction boundary, it is processed as the beginning of the assistant's own pre-filled response. This structural manipulation intrinsically overactivates the model's continuation attention heads, forcing its…

The Struggle Between Continuation and Refusal: A Mechanistic Analysis of the Continuation-Triggered Jailbreak in LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Deep Safety Attention Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An activation-steering vulnerability in open-weights Large Language Models allows attackers to bypass safety guardrails by injecting targeted additive perturbations into deep, safety-critical attention heads. The exploit, termed Safety Attention Head Attack (SAHA), utilizes Ablation-Impact Ranking (AIR) to isolate specific attention heads that causally govern safety refusals. By applying Layer-Wise Perturbations (LWP) derived from the linearized decision boundary of a latent safety probe, an…

Depth Charge: Jailbreak Large Language Models from Deep Safety Attention Heads
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, DeepSeek LLM 7B Chat, Qwen 1.5 7B Chat

Localized Refusal Ablation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in safety-aligned open-weights Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to bypass refusal mechanisms during inference via a representation-level jailbreak known as PCA-regularized Gaussian Optimal Transport (PCA-OT). Unlike previous 1D directional ablation methods (e.g., Refusal Feature Ablation), this attack computes a minimal-cost optimal transport map that matches both the mean and covariance of "harmful" activation distributions to "harmless" ones within a…

Efficient Refusal Ablation in LLM through Optimal Transport
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Two-Stage Refusal Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to TAO-Attack, an advanced optimization-based jailbreak that bypasses safety alignments by exploiting gradient-guided token updates. The vulnerability stems from a two-stage loss function combined with a Direction-Priority Token Optimization (DPTO) algorithm. In the first stage, the attack optimizes an adversarial prompt suffix to minimize the probability of refusal signals (e.g., "I cannot") while maximizing the probability of a harmful target…

TAO-Attack: Toward Advanced Optimization-Based Jailbreak Attacks for Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, Llama 2 7B Chat+4 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.2
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5

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

Emergent Distractor Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) post-training phase of OLMo 2 models leads to "distractor-triggered compliance." The model correctly refuses harmful requests when prompted in isolation, but complies with identical harmful requests if a benign formatting instruction (a "distractor") is appended to the prompt. This behavior organically emerges from contaminated preference training data where mislabeled examples incorrectly preferred compliance over refusal when a…

In-the-Wild Model Organisms: Mitigating Undesirable Emergent Behaviors in Production LLM Post-Training via Data Attribution
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.