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

556 entries

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

Prompt Injection Alignment Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated with external retrieval mechanisms (e.g., Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), web search, or email processing) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection. This vulnerability occurs when an LLM consumes input from untrusted external sources—such as websites, code repositories, or incoming emails—that contain embedded adversarial prompts. Unlike direct injection, where the user attacks the model, here the "poisoned" data is retrieved by the system…

Breaking to Build: A Threat Model of Prompt-Based Attacks for Securing LLMs
Evaluated models: Not reported

Adaptive Role-Play Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to an automated, adaptive role-play jailbreak attack known as GUARD (Guideline Upholding Test through Adaptive Role-play and Jailbreak Diagnostics). The vulnerability exists because the models fail to recognize malicious intent when harmful queries are embedded within complex, iteratively optimized "playing scenarios."

GUARD: Guideline Upholding Test through Adaptive Role-play and Jailbreak Diagnostics for LLMs
Evaluated models: Vicuna 13B, LongChat 7B, Llama 2 7B+5 more
  • Vicuna 13B
  • LongChat 7B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • MiniGPT-v2

Malicious Intent Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

IntentionReasoner, specifically the 1.5B and 3B parameter versions optimized via Reinforcement Learning (RL), contains a safety regression vulnerability where the RL alignment process degrades the model's resistance to jailbreak attacks compared to the Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) baseline. While RL improves general utility and rewriting quality, it inadvertently increases the Attack Success Rate (ASR) for adversarial inputs in smaller architectures. This allows sophisticated jailbreak prompts…

IntentionReasoner: Facilitating Adaptive LLM Safeguards through Intent Reasoning and Selective Query Refinement
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • DeepSeek V3
  • IntentionReasoner 1.5B
  • IntentionReasoner 3B

Markovian Adaptive Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to an adaptive black-box jailbreaking framework named MAJIC (Markovian Adaptive Jailbreaking via Iterative Composition). This vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass safety alignment mechanisms by modeling the selection and composition of prompt disguise strategies as a Markov chain. Unlike static attacks, MAJIC initializes a transition matrix using a proxy model to determine the probability of a specific strategy succeeding after a prior strategy…

MAJIC: Markovian Adaptive Jailbreaking via Iterative Composition of Diverse Innovative Strategies
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct, Gemma 2 9B IT, Gemini 2.0 Flash+2 more
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Gemma 2 9B IT
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet

Universal Prompt Disables Guardrails

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A universal prompt injection vulnerability, termed "Involuntary Jailbreak," affects multiple large language models. The attack uses a single prompt that instructs the model to learn a pattern from abstract string operators (X and Y). The model is then asked to generate its own examples of questions that should be refused (harmful questions) and provide detailed, non-refusal answers to them, in order to satisfy the learned operator logic. This reframes the generation of harmful content as a…

Involuntary Jailbreak
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Haiku, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Claude Opus 4+29 more
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Claude Opus 4
  • Claude Opus 4.1
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 3 Pro
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Grok 3
  • Grok 3 Fast
  • Grok 3 Mini
  • Grok 4
  • Grok 4.1
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.1 405B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Llama 4 Scout
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Mistral Small 24B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B Instruct 2507
  • Qwen 3 Coder 480B-A35B Instruct

MDH: Hybrid Jailbreak Detection Strategy

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large language models that support a developer role in their API are vulnerable to a jailbreaking attack that leverages malicious developer messages. An attacker can craft a developer message that overrides the model's safety alignment by setting a permissive persona, providing explicit instructions to bypass refusals, and using few-shot examples of harmful query-response pairs. This technique, named D-Attack, is effective on its own. A more advanced variant, DH-CoT, enhances the attack by…

Jailbreaking Commercial Black-Box LLMs with Explicitly Harmful Prompts
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1+13 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • o1-mini
  • o1
  • o3-mini
  • o3
  • o4-mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • DeepSeek V3
  • DeepSeek R1 0528
  • DeepSeek R1

Back-Translation Watermark Stripping

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Implementations of Large Language Model (LLM) watermarking algorithms—specifically KGW (Kirchenbauer et al.), Semantic Invariant Robust (SIR) Watermark, Entropy-based Text Watermarking (EWD), and Unbiased Watermarking—are vulnerable to watermark stripping via adversarial text perturbation. When watermarked text generated by models such as OPT-1.3B is subjected to automated paraphrasing or back-translation (e.g., English $\to$ French $\to$ English), the embedded statistical signals are…

Signature vs. Substance: Evaluating the Balance of Adversarial Resistance and Linguistic Quality in Watermarking Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B

Balanced Multimodal Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreak attack strategy known as Balanced Structural Decomposition (BSD). This vulnerability exploits a structural trade-off in safety alignment where models fail to detect malicious intent when the input balances semantic relevance ("On-Topicness") with distributional novelty ("OOD-Intensity"). The attack functions by recursively decomposing a harmful text objective into a tree of sub-tasks using an "Explore" (diversity) and…

Towards Effective MLLM Jailbreaking Through Balanced On-Topicness and OOD-Intensity
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4.1+10 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 32B Instruct
  • InternVL3 8B
  • InternVL3 14B
  • InternVL3 38B

Thinking Mode Jailbreak Amplification

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) implementing "Thinking Mode" (also known as Reasoning Mode or Chain-of-Thought) exhibit a heightened susceptibility to jailbreak attacks compared to their non-reasoning counterparts. When a model is prompted to reason step-by-step (often delimited by specific tokens like <think> and </think>), the internal reasoning process frequently overrides safety alignment training. Research indicates that during the generation of the thinking chain, the model often…

The Cost of Thinking: Increased Jailbreak Risk in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 0.6B, Qwen 3 1.7B, Qwen 3 4B+8 more
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Qwen 3 1.7B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct
  • Qwen Plus Latest
  • Doubao Seed 1.6 Flash
  • DeepSeek Reasoner

Automated Red-Teaming Achieves 100% ASR

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to automated adversarial attacks that systematically combine multiple jailbreaking "primitives" into complex prompt chains. A dynamic optimization engine can generate and test billions of unique combinations of techniques (e.g., low-resource language translation, payload splitting, role-playing) to bypass safety guardrails. This combinatorial approach differs from manual red-teaming by systematically exploring the attack surface, achieving…

LLM Robustness Leaderboard v1--Technical report
Evaluated models: Yi Large, Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct+36 more
  • Yi Large
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen Max
  • Qwen Plus
  • Nova Lite v1
  • Nova Micro v1
  • Nova Pro v1
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • Claude 3 Opus
  • Claude 3 Sonnet
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku 20241022
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20241022
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemma 2 27B IT
  • Granite 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 90B Vision Instruct
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Phi-4
  • Ministral 8B
  • Mistral Nemo
  • Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
  • Mixtral 8x7B Instruct
  • Pixtral Large 2411
  • GPT-4o 2024-08-06
  • GPT-4o 2024-11-20
  • GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18
  • o1 2024-12-17
  • o3-mini 2025-01-14
  • Falcon 3 10B Instruct
  • Grok 2 1212

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.