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

Research findings

985 entries

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

Token Position Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreak attacks that exploit the positional sensitivity of adversarial tokens. Existing gradient-based attacks, such as the Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG), conventionally append adversarial tokens as a suffix to the user prompt. This vulnerability allows attackers to bypass safety alignment mechanisms with significantly higher success rates by optimizing adversarial tokens as a prefix (GCG-Prefix) or relocating existing adversarial suffixes to…

Beyond Suffixes: Token Position in GCG Adversarial Attacks on Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 2.5 7B+1 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Vicuna 7B

High-Dim Bandit Reward Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in offline multi-armed bandit (MAB) evaluation frameworks allows attackers to completely hijack arm selection by applying imperceptibly small adversarial perturbations to the weights of the underlying reward model before training begins. Because the required perturbation norm decreases as the input dimensionality increases ($\mathcal{O}(d^{-1/2})$), high-dimensional reward models—such as wide neural networks or linear models used for generative model assessment—are highly…

Efficient Adversarial Attacks on High-dimensional Offline Bandits
Evaluated models: Stable Diffusion

Learned Reward Model Hacking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned via Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) are vulnerable to reward hacking (reward misgeneralization). This occurs when the policy model exploits spurious correlations in the learned proxy reward model (RM) to maximize scores without satisfying the underlying human intent. As the policy optimizes against the imperfect RM, the proxy reward diverges from the ground-truth performance (Goodhart’s Law), leading to specific misaligned behaviors…

Adversarial Reward Auditing for Active Detection and Mitigation of Reward Hacking
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Llama 2 7B

Noisy Data Pretraining Divergence

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A data poisoning vulnerability exists in the pretraining pipeline of Transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs) where the injection of synthetic uniform random noise into the training corpus induces irreversible training loss divergence or performance degradation. This instability is mechanistically distinct from divergence caused by high learning rates. The vulnerability is specifically triggered by "insertion noise" (inserting random tokens between clean tokens) drawn from a restricted…

An Empirical Study on Noisy Data and LLM Pretraining Loss Divergence
Evaluated models: Not reported

Semantic Hierarchical VLM Transfer

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to a transferable targeted adversarial attack known as SGHA-Attack (Semantic-Guided Hierarchical Alignment). This vulnerability arises from the susceptibility of visual encoders (specifically Vision Transformers) to intermediate-layer feature manipulation optimized on a surrogate model (e.g., CLIP). An attacker can craft adversarial images by injecting imperceptible perturbations that enforce semantic consistency with a target text prompt…

SGHA-Attack: Semantic-Guided Hierarchical Alignment for Transferable Targeted Attacks on Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: UniDiffuser, BLIP-2 ViT-g/14, InstructBLIP Vicuna 13B+4 more
  • UniDiffuser
  • BLIP-2 ViT-g/14
  • InstructBLIP Vicuna 13B
  • MiniGPT-4 Vicuna 13B
  • LLaVA 1.5 13B
  • LLaVA NeXT Qwen 1.5 72B Chat
  • GPT-4o

Tag-Along Agent Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in tool-augmented Large Language Model (LLM) agents characterized as "Tag-Along Attacks," where an unprivileged external user (or adversarial agent) coerces a safety-aligned Operator agent into executing prohibited tool calls. Unlike Indirect Prompt Injection, this attack targets the direct conversational interface using a technique termed "Imperative Overloading." By mimicking system prompt syntax and utilizing high-priority imperative commands (e.g., "Strict adherence…

David vs. Goliath: Verifiable Agent-to-Agent Jailbreaking via Reinforcement Learning
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct AWQ, DeepSeek V3.1, Gemini 2.5 Flash+9 more
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct AWQ
  • DeepSeek V3.1
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Meta-SecAlign 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct AWQ
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct AWQ
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • GPT-5 Nano
  • Claude 3 Haiku

Zero-Training Cross-Domain Inversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A cryptographic weakness exists in the privacy assumptions of vector embeddings used in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems and Vector Databases. The vulnerability, designated "Zero2Text," allows an unauthenticated attacker to reconstruct raw text from captured vector embeddings without access to the victim model's parameters, gradients, or training data. Unlike prior embedding inversion attacks that require training large decoders on domain-specific datasets, this vulnerability…

Zero2Text: Zero-Training Cross-Domain Inversion Attacks on Textual Embeddings
Evaluated models: Not reported

Covert Grade Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) utilized for Automatic Short Answer Grading (ASAG) are vulnerable to the "GradingAttack" framework, which employs fine-grained adversarial manipulation to alter grading outcomes. Attackers can leverage two distinct strategies: (1) Prompt-level attacks using role-play injection strings that instruct the model to pretend an answer is correct regardless of factual accuracy, and (2) Token-level attacks utilizing gradient-based optimization (similar to Greedy Coordinate…

GradingAttack: Attacking Large Language Models Towards Short Answer Grading Ability
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4o+3 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

SS-Neuron Cross-Lingual Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a cross-lingual safety vulnerability driven by a dependency on a sparse subset of "Shared Safety Neurons" (SS-Neurons) anchored in high-resource (HR) languages, typically English. Non-high-resource (NHR) languages lack autonomous safety mechanisms and rely on projecting inputs onto this English-aligned safety manifold to trigger refusals. Because this projection is imperfect, safety guardrails can be bypassed by translating malicious prompts into NHR…

Who Transfers Safety? Identifying and Targeting Cross-Lingual Shared Safety Neurons
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Qwen 3 8B, Gemma 2 9B IT

UltraBreak Universal VLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to a universal and transferable adversarial attack dubbed "UltraBreak." This vulnerability allows remote attackers to bypass safety alignment filters and elicit harmful responses (e.g., hate speech, dangerous instructions) by supplying a single, specifically crafted adversarial image alongside a text query. Unlike traditional gradient-based attacks that optimize for specific token sequences (cross-entropy loss) and result in brittle…

Toward Universal and Transferable Jailbreak Attacks on Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen VL Chat, Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct+6 more
  • Qwen VL Chat
  • Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • LLaVA v1.6 Mistral 7B
  • Kimi VL A3B Instruct
  • GLM-4.1V 9B Thinking
  • GPT-4.1 Nano
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
  • Claude 3 Haiku

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.