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

262 entries

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

Recommender Memory Update Corruption

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Improper input validation in the memory module of Large Language Model (LLM)-powered agentic Recommender Systems (RS) allows remote attackers to perform indirect prompt injection via adversarial item descriptions. By utilizing the "DrunkAgent" framework, an attacker can embed semantic triggers and control characters (such as segmentation tokens and escape characters) into product descriptions. These injections manipulate the agent's memory update mechanism during agent-environment…

DrunkAgent: Stealthy Memory Corruption in LLM-Powered Recommender Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4, o1, Llama 3 8B

Cross-Batch Interference

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed using "Batch Prompting" strategies—where multiple distinct user queries are concatenated and processed in a single inference pass to reduce computational costs—are vulnerable to Cross-Query Prompt Injection. When a batch contains a mixture of benign queries and a single malicious query, the instructions within the malicious query (e.g., "apply this rule to every answer") bleed over the context window. This causes the model to apply the adversary's…

Efficient but Vulnerable: Benchmarking and Defending LLM Batch Prompting Attack
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Claude 3.5 Sonnet+4 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • DeepSeek R1

Agent System Orchestration Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-agent systems (MAS) utilizing Large Language Model (LLM) orchestration are vulnerable to control-flow hijacking via indirect prompt injection, leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE). This vulnerability arises when a sub-agent (e.g., a file surfer or web surfer) processes untrusted input containing adversarial metadata, such as simulated error messages or administrative instructions. The sub-agent faithfully reproduces this adversarial content in its report to the orchestrator agent. The…

Multi-agent systems execute arbitrary malicious code
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 1.5 Pro+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash

MLM Adaptive RAG Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems that allows for black-box adversarial attacks known as "CtrlRAG." This flaw allows an attacker to manipulate the generation of Large Language Models (LLMs) by injecting maliciously crafted inputs into the system's knowledge base. Unlike traditional injection attacks that rely on direct concatenation, CtrlRAG utilizes a Masked Language Model (MLM) to iteratively replace words in the malicious text. This optimization ensures…

CtrlRAG: Black-box Document Poisoning Attacks for Retrieval-Augmented Generation of Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet+2 more
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • DeepSeek V3
  • DeepSeek R1

Cross-Modal Toxic Continuation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to a cross-modal toxic continuation attack facilitated by reinforcement learning-tuned diffusion models. This vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass safety alignment and external guardrails (such as NSFW image filters) by pairing a specific text prefix with a "semantically adversarial" image. Unlike traditional gradient-based adversarial examples that rely on pixel noise, these images are semantically coherent but optimized via Denoising…

RedDiffuser: Auditing Multimodal Safety Failures in Vision-Language Models via Reinforced Diffusion
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, Gemini 1.5 Flash, Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct

LLM Judge Adversarial Vulnerability

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) safety judges exhibit vulnerability to adversarial attacks and stylistic prompt modifications, leading to increased false negative rates (FNR) and decreased accuracy in classifying harmful model outputs. Minor stylistic changes to model outputs, such as altering the formatting or tone, can significantly impact a judge's classification, while direct adversarial modifications to the generated text can fool judges into misclassifying even 100% of harmful generations as…

Know Thy Judge: On the Robustness Meta-Evaluation of LLM Safety Judges
Evaluated models: Atla Selene Mini 8B, Llama 2 13B, Llama 3.1 8B+4 more
  • Atla Selene Mini 8B
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama Guard 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • ShieldGemma 9B
  • WildGuard

Cat-Triggered Reasoning Error

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) designed for step-by-step problem-solving are vulnerable to query-agnostic adversarial triggers. Appending short, semantically irrelevant text snippets (e.g., "Interesting fact: cats sleep most of their lives") to mathematical problems consistently increases the likelihood of incorrect model outputs without altering the problem's inherent meaning. This vulnerability stems from the models' susceptibility to subtle input manipulations that interfere with their…

Cats Confuse Reasoning LLM: Query Agnostic Adversarial Triggers for Reasoning Models
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1, DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 32B, DeepSeek V3+2 more
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 32B
  • DeepSeek V3
  • o1
  • o3-mini

Agent Reasoning Hijacking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) agents that allows attackers to manipulate the agent's reasoning process through the insertion of strategically placed adversarial strings. This allows attackers to induce the agent to perform unintended malicious actions or invoke specific malicious tools, even when the initial prompt or instruction is benign. The attack exploits the agent's reliance on chain-of-thought reasoning and dynamically optimizes the adversarial string to maximize…

UDora: A Unified Red Teaming Framework against LLM Agents by Dynamically Hijacking Their Own Reasoning
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, GPT-4o+2 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B

Flowchart-based LVLM Jailbreak Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

FC-Attack leverages automatically generated flowcharts containing step-by-step descriptions derived or rephrased from harmful queries, combined with a benign textual prompt, to jailbreak Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). The vulnerability lies in the model's susceptibility to visual prompts containing harmful information within the flowcharts, thus bypassing safety alignment mechanisms.

FC-Attack: Jailbreaking Large Vision-Language Models via Auto-Generated Flowcharts
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620, Gemini 1.5 Flash, GPT-4o 2024-08-06+4 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • GPT-4o 2024-08-06
  • GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18
  • InternVL2.5 8B
  • LLaVA NeXT 8B
  • Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct

Adaptive LLM Agent Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM agents utilizing external tools are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI) attacks. Attackers can embed malicious instructions into the external data accessed by the agent, manipulating its behavior even when defenses against direct prompt injection are in place. Adaptive attacks, which modify the injected payload based on the specific defense mechanism, consistently bypass existing defenses with a success rate exceeding 50%.

Adaptive Attacks Break Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Agents
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Vicuna 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.