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

183 entries

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

Autoresearch Adversarial Algorithm Discovery

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

GPT-OSS-Safeguard-20B and Meta-SecAlign (70B/8B) are vulnerable to white-box adversarial attacks generated by automated algorithmic recombination (specifically the claude_v63, claude_v82, and claude_v53-oss optimizers). These algorithms significantly outperform standard discrete optimization methods (like GCG) by integrating continuous optimization (ADC) with LayerNorm gradient scaling (LSGM), or by merging momentum-smoothed gradients with directional perturbation candidate selection (DPTO)…

Claudini: Autoresearch Discovers State-of-the-Art Adversarial Attack Algorithms for LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B+2 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Gemma 7B

Steering Vector Safety Gap

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Activation steering techniques, such as Contrastive Activation Addition (CAA), systematically erode the safety alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) due to geometric interference within the residual stream. Steering vectors intended to modulate benign or utility-driven behaviors (e.g., sycophancy, openness, self-awareness) often exhibit a negative cosine similarity with the model's latent 1D refusal direction. When applied during inference, these steering vectors inadvertently suppress the…

Analysing the Safety Pitfalls of Steering Vectors
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Qwen 2.5 3B, Gemma 7B

Joint Audio-Text Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Spoken Language Models (SLMs) are vulnerable to Joint Audio-text Multimodal Attacks (JAMA), which bypass safety alignments by simultaneously perturbing both text and audio inputs. The vulnerability exploits the combined optimization of a discrete text suffix via Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) and a continuous audio perturbation via Projected Gradient Descent (PGD). This joint gradient-based attack pushes the model's hidden layer representations into a distinct subspace far from the benign…

On Optimizing Multimodal Jailbreaks for Spoken Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen2-Audio 7B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 Omni 7B, Audio Flamingo 3+1 more
  • Qwen2-Audio 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 Omni 7B
  • Audio Flamingo 3
  • Gemma 3n E2B

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

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.