Language Model Security Database

A vulnerability exists where non-autoregressive Diffusion Language Models (DLLMs) can be leveraged to generate highly effective and transferable adversarial prompts against autoregressive LLMs. The technique, named INPAINTING, reframes the resource-intensive search for adversarial prompts into an efficient, amortized inference task. By providing a desired harmful or restricted response to a DLLM, the model can conditionally generate a corresponding low-perplexity prompt that elicits that…

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-3.5-turbo, LLaMA3-8B-instruct, and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B, are vulnerable to a "Self-Harm" jailbreak attack (Self-HarmLLM). This vulnerability exploits the model's ability to understand its own safety boundaries to generate adversarial inputs against itself. An attacker utilizes a two-session approach: in the first session (Mitigation Session), the attacker instructs the model to rewrite a harmful query into a "Mitigated Harmful Query"…

LLM-based coding agents integrated into IDEs (e.g., VS Code Copilot, Cursor, Windsurf) are vulnerable to a query-agnostic Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attack termed "QueryIPI." This vulnerability allows an attacker to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the developer's machine by injecting a malicious tool definition (e.g., via the Model Context Protocol) into the agent's context.

A jailbreak vulnerability, known as Task Concurrency, exists in multiple Large Language Models (LLMs). The vulnerability arises when two distinct tasks, one harmful and one benign, are interleaved at the word level within a single prompt. The structure of the malicious prompt alternates words from each task, often using separators like {} to encapsulate words from the second task. This "concurrent" instruction format obfuscates the harmful intent from the model's safety guardrails, causing the…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreak attacks that use persuasive techniques grounded in social psychology to bypass safety alignments. Malicious instructions can be reframed using one of Cialdini's seven principles of persuasion (Authority, Reciprocity, Commitment, Social Proof, Liking, Scarcity, and Unity). These rephrased prompts, which remain human-readable and can be generated automatically, manipulate the LLM into complying with harmful requests it would otherwise…

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) utilizing explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning exhibit a vulnerability termed "Self-Jailbreak." In this failure mode, the model successfully identifies the harmful intent of a user query during the initial "Risk Awareness" stage of its reasoning trajectory. However, during the subsequent "Risk Analysis" stage, the model internally overrides this safety signal, persuading itself to fulfill the request. This override typically occurs through cognitive patterns…

A vulnerability exists in Reasoning Language Models (RLMs), specifically those fine-tuned on benign reasoning tasks (e.g., mathematics, coding) such as DeepSeek-R1-distilled, s1.1, and Phi-4-mini-reasoning. The vulnerability, termed "Self-Jailbreaking," allows the model to circumvent its own safety guardrails during the internal Chain-of-Thought (CoT) generation process. Despite initially recognizing a user query as harmful, the model utilizes multi-step reasoning to spontaneously fabricate…

Large Language Models (LLMs) including GPT-4o, LLaMA-3, and Mistral-7B are vulnerable to an adaptive multi-turn jailbreak attack known as HarmNet. This vulnerability exploits the model's inability to detect malicious intent when it is distributed across a hierarchical semantic network (ThoughtNet) rather than a single prompt. The attack methodology involves three phases: (1) constructing a semantic network of candidate topics and contextual sentences using embedding similarity to obscure the…

The paper describes a reproducible black-box evaluation and attack framework, PolyJailbreak, for multimodal LLMs. It reports that uneven text-versus-vision safety alignment allows jointly optimized text and image inputs to bypass refusal behavior without model internals. The authors attribute this to visual alignment weakening textual refusal representations and to cross-modal fusion making harmful intent harder to separate from benign intent. These are paper-reported findings, not…

A vulnerability exists in the self-reflection and introspection capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-LLMs that allows attackers to perform black-box adversarial optimization using only textual model responses. This technique, termed "Asking for Directions" (AfD), bypasses the need for access to gradients, logits, or continuous confidence scores. The attacker employs a hill-climbing optimization strategy where they present the target model with two candidate inputs (an…