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.

Embedding-Translated Adversarial Suffixes

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A novel adversarial suffix embedding translation framework (ASETF) enables efficient and highly successful attacks against large language models (LLMs). ASETF optimizes continuous adversarial suffix embeddings, then translates these embeddings into coherent, human-readable text. This bypasses existing defenses which rely on detecting unusual or nonsensical suffixes. The attack achieves a high success rate across multiple LLMs, including both open-source and black-box models.

ASETF: A Novel Method for Jailbreak Attack on LLMs through Translate Suffix Embeddings
Evaluated models: Alpaca 7B (Safe-RLHF), ChatGLM3 6B, GPT-3.5 Turbo+6 more
  • Alpaca 7B (Safe-RLHF)
  • ChatGLM3 6B
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-J 6B
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Mistral 7B
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5
  • Vicuna 13B v1.5

Universal LLM Score Inflation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) used for zero-shot text assessment are vulnerable to universal adversarial attacks. Concatenating short phrases ("universal adversarial phrases") to assessed text can artificially inflate the predicted scores, regardless of the actual quality of the text. This vulnerability is particularly pronounced in LLMs performing absolute scoring, as opposed to comparative assessment.

Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessment
Evaluated models: Flan-T5 XL, GPT-3.5, Llama 2 7B+1 more
  • Flan-T5 XL
  • GPT-3.5
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Mistral 7B

Complex Cipher Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) with advanced reasoning capabilities are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks using novel, complex, and layered custom encryption schemes. LLMs' ability to decipher these ciphers, exceeding the capabilities of less sophisticated models, enables attackers to bypass existing safety mechanisms by encoding malicious prompts.

When" Competency" in Reasoning Opens the Door to Vulnerability: Jailbreaking LLMs via Novel Complex Ciphers
Evaluated models: Gemini 1.5 Flash, GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct+1 more
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Fast Projected Gradient Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to efficient adversarial attacks using Projected Gradient Descent (PGD) on a continuously relaxed input prompt. This attack bypasses existing alignment methods by crafting adversarial prompts that induce the model to produce undesired or harmful outputs, significantly faster than previous state-of-the-art discrete optimization methods. The effectiveness stems from carefully controlling the error introduced by the continuous relaxation of the discrete…

Attacking large language models with projected gradient descent
Evaluated models: Falcon 7B, Falcon 7B Instruct, Vicuna 7B v1.3

Multimodal Model Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreaking attack using crafted images (image Jailbreaking Prompts or imgJPs). These imgJPs, when presented as input alongside malicious prompts, cause the MLLM to bypass safety mechanisms and generate objectionable content, including instructions for harmful activities like identity theft or creation of violent video games. The attack demonstrates both prompt-universality (a single imgJP works across multiple prompts) and, to a…

Jailbreaking attack against multimodal large language model
Evaluated models: InstructBLIP, MiniGPT-4, MiniGPT-v2+3 more
  • InstructBLIP
  • MiniGPT-4
  • MiniGPT-v2
  • Mplug-owl2
  • Vicuna 13B
  • Vicuna 7B

LLM Causal Neuron Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as Llama 2 and Vicuna exhibit a vulnerability where specific layers (e.g., layer 3 in Llama2-13B, layer 1 in Llama2-7B and Vicuna-13B) overfit to harmful prompts, resulting in a disproportionate influence on the model's output for such prompts. This overfitting creates a narrow "safety" mechanism easily bypassed by adversarial prompts designed to avoid triggering these specific layers. Additionally, a single neuron (e.g., neuron 2100 in Llama2 and Vicuna)…

Causality analysis for evaluating the security of large language models
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, Llama 2-13B-chat-hf, Llama 2-7B-chat-hf+1 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • Llama 2-13B-chat-hf
  • Llama 2-7B-chat-hf
  • Vicuna-13B Version 1.5

LLM-Guided Prompt Deconstruction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Text-to-Image (T2I) models' safety filters allows bypassing through the injection of adversarial prompts crafted by an LLM-driven multi-agent system. The attack, named Divide-and-Conquer Attack (DACA), circumvents the filters by rephrasing harmful prompts into multiple benign descriptions of individual visual components, thus avoiding detection while maintaining the original visual intent.

Divide-and-Conquer Attack: Harnessing the Power of LLM to Bypass the Censorship of Text-to-Image Generation Model
Evaluated models: Chatglm-turbo, DALL-E 3, GPT-3.5 Turbo+5 more
  • Chatglm-turbo
  • DALL-E 3
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Midjourney v6
  • Qwen 14B
  • Qwen Max
  • Spark v3.0

Adversarial Code Generation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) used for code generation are vulnerable to adversarial natural language instructions that preserve semantic meaning but induce the generation of functionally correct code containing specific vulnerabilities. The attack leverages a novel algorithm, DeceptPrompt, to generate adversarial prompts that manipulate the LLM's output, resulting in vulnerable code without altering the intended functionality.

Deceptprompt: Exploiting llm-driven code generation via adversarial natural language instructions
Evaluated models: Code Llama 7B, StarChat 15B, WizardCoder 15B+1 more
  • Code Llama 7B
  • StarChat 15B
  • WizardCoder 15B
  • WizardCoder 3B

Image-Based MLLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to a novel attack vector where query-relevant images, generated using techniques like Stable Diffusion and typography, bypass safety mechanisms and elicit unsafe responses even when the underlying LLM is safety-aligned. The attack exploits the vision-language alignment module's susceptibility to image prompts directly related to malicious text queries.

Query-relevant images jailbreak large multi-modal models
Evaluated models: Cogvlm, Idefics, InstructBLIP+11 more
  • Cogvlm
  • Idefics
  • InstructBLIP
  • Llama-adapterv2
  • LLaVA 1.5 13B
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • MiniGPT-4
  • Minigpt-5(7B)
  • Minigpt-v2(7B)
  • Mplug-owl
  • Otter
  • Qwen VL
  • Shikra(7B)
  • Stable Diffusion

Autonomous Agent Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents, due to their multi-agent architecture and role-based interactions, are vulnerable to adversarial attacks that exploit the system's design and agent roles. Maliciously crafted prompts, particularly those targeting system-level roles, can cause agents to generate harmful content, bypassing safety mechanisms more effectively than attacks against individual LLMs. The vulnerability stems from a "domino effect" where one compromised agent can trigger harmful…

Evil geniuses: Delving into the safety of llm-based agents
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4

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.