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

736 entries

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

Sophisticated Deception Induces Misbelief

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a vulnerability to "hard-to-falsify" deceptive evidence injection, termed the "Facade of Truth." This vulnerability allows an attacker to override an LLM’s parametric knowledge (internal factual beliefs) by injecting sophisticated, iteratively refined fabricated evidence into the context window. Unlike overt misinformation which models typically reject, this attack utilizes a multi-agent adversarial framework (MisBelief) to generate evidence that mimics…

The Facade of Truth: Uncovering and Mitigating LLM Susceptibility to Deceptive Evidence
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-5, Llama 3 8B+1 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B

Tool Stream Injection Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing external tool execution frameworks are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) via the "Tool Stream." Unlike traditional data-stream injections (e.g., malicious emails), this vulnerability exploits the agent's interpretation of functional tool definitions (docstrings, signatures) and runtime feedback (error messages, return values) as binding operational constraints. Adversaries functioning as compromised or malicious tool providers can embed…

VIGIL: Defending LLM Agents Against Tool Stream Injection via Verify-Before-Commit
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, Qwen 3 Max

Distal Translation Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the prompt-side safety filters of GPT-based Text-to-Image (T2I) systems allows attackers to bypass restrictions on Politically Sensitive Content (PSC). By utilizing a technique called Identity-Preserving Descriptive Mapping (IPDM) combined with Geopolitically Distal Translation, an attacker can obfuscate explicit political entities into neutral descriptive phrases translated across multiple low-resource languages. This induces semantic fragmentation, preventing the safety…

: Politically Controversial Content Generation via Jailbreaking Attacks on GPT-based Text-to-Image Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5, GPT-5.1+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • GPT-5.1
  • DALL-E
  • Midjourney

Knowledge-Graph Implicit Prompts

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a domain-specific obfuscation attack method termed "StealthGraph," which leverages Knowledge Graph (KG) guidance to bypass safety alignment. The vulnerability arises because current safety mechanisms primarily focus on explicit, general-domain harmful queries and fail to generalize to implicit, highly technical requests in specialized domains (e.g., medicine, finance, law).

StealthGraph: Exposing Domain-Specific Risks in LLMs through Knowledge-Graph-Guided Harmful Prompt Generation
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Grok 3 Mini+10 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Grok 3 Mini
  • DeepSeek V3.1
  • Mixtral 8x7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Qwen 3.5 Plus
  • GLM-5
  • Gemini 3 Pro
  • Llama Guard 4 12B
  • Vicuna 13B v1.5

LLM Conspiracy Bunking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

OpenAI GPT-4o is vulnerable to a targeted persuasion attack where the model acts as an active advocate for conspiracy theories. Standard safety guardrails do not prevent the model from generating specious, invented, or misleading arguments to successfully increase user belief in false claims (a "bunking" attack). Additionally, when explicitly constrained by system prompts to use only truthful information, the model adapts by "paltering"—strategically omitting context, juxtaposing true claims…

Large language models can effectively convince people to believe conspiracies
Evaluated models: GPT-4, GPT-4o

LLM Watermark Translation Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Token-level embedding-time watermarking algorithms, specifically KGW (Kirchenbauer et al.) and Exponential Sampling (EXP, Kuditipudi et al.), when implemented in Large Language Models (LLMs) for Bangla text generation, are vulnerable to watermark erasure via cross-lingual round-trip translation (RTT) attacks. While these methods achieve high detection accuracy (>88%) under benign conditions, translating watermarked Bangla text to English and back to Bangla causes detection accuracy to collapse…

BanglaLorica: Design and Evaluation of a Robust Watermarking Algorithm for Large Language Models in Bangla Text Generation
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B

Multi-turn MLLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to a multi-turn jailbreaking attack that leverages typographic visual prompts combined with conversational context drifting. The vulnerability exists because MLLMs establish trust and context during initial benign interactions, shifting the model's latent representation toward helpfulness and compromising its ability to detect malicious intent in subsequent turns. The attack vector utilizes an image where a harmful request is…

Multi-turn Jailbreaking Attack in Multi-Modal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct
  • LLaVA 1.6 Mistral 7B
  • LLaVA 1.5 13B

Persona Performance Reversal

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the prompt-based persona conditioning of clinical Large Language Models (LLMs) allows system-level role prompts (e.g., "You are an ED physician") to override the model's base safety guardrails and degrade task accuracy. When assigned medically grounded personas or specific interaction styles (e.g., "bold" or "cautious"), the LLM adopts these roles as behavioral priors, which induces non-monotonic, context-dependent shifts in clinical risk posture. While improving performance…

The Persona Paradox: Medical Personas as Behavioral Priors in Clinical Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-5, Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B+1 more
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 27B

CoT Prefix Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) and Large Reasoning Model (LRM) serving interfaces that allow user-defined response prefixes, such as plain text-completion (v1/completions), Fill-in-the-Middle (FIM), or assistant message prefilling. An attacker can perform a Response Prefix Attack (RPA) by injecting maliciously crafted Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning tokens immediately following the assistant's start delimiter (e.g., <|im_start|>assistant). Because these tokens are placed…

What Matters For Safety Alignment?
Evaluated models: DeepSeek V3.2, Gemini 3 Pro Preview, Gemini 3 Flash Preview+4 more
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • Gemini 3 Pro Preview
  • Gemini 3 Flash Preview
  • Grok 4.1 Fast
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • GPT-5.2
  • GPT-4o Mini

LLM Inconsistent Vulnerability Assessment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Ministral-8B-Instruct-2410, Gemma-2-9B-It, and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, contain a safety guardrail bypass vulnerability when subjected to optimized adversarial prompts. The vulnerability is exposed via the RainbowPlus quality-diversity search method utilized within the RedBench evaluation framework. These models exhibit high Attack Success Rates (ASR)—up to 97.81% for Ministral and 96.25% for Llama-3.1—failing to refuse prompts in…

RedBench: A Universal Dataset for Comprehensive Red Teaming of Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B 8B+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 9B

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.