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

609 entries

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

Overfitting-induced Benign Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) that support fine-tuning, allowing an attacker to bypass safety alignments using a small, benign dataset. The attack, "Attack via Overfitting," is a two-stage process. In Stage 1, the model is fine-tuned on a small set of benign questions (e.g., 10) paired with identical, repetitive refusal answers. This induces an overfitted state where the model learns to refuse all prompts, creating a sharp minimum in the loss landscape and making it…

Attack via Overfitting: 10-shot Benign Fine-tuning to Jailbreak LLMs
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4.1+7 more
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 8B

Controlled-Release Guard Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability termed "Controlled-Release Prompting" allows attackers to bypass lightweight input filters (prompt guards) deployed in front of Large Language Models (LLMs). The attack exploits the computational resource asymmetry between the resource-constrained guard model and the highly capable target model. Attackers encode malicious instructions using obfuscation techniques—such as substitution ciphers (Timed-Release) or verbose character descriptions (Spaced-Release)—that require…

Bypassing Prompt Guards in Production with Controlled-Release Prompting
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek R1+2 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Grok 3
  • GPT-5 Mini

LLM Self-Targeted Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A security vulnerability exists in the safety alignment mechanisms of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically susceptible to the "Dynamic Target Attack" (DTA). Unlike traditional gradient-based jailbreaks (e.g., GCG) that optimize adversarial suffixes toward a fixed, low-probability static target (e.g., "Sure, here is..."), DTA exploits the model's own output distribution. The attack iteratively samples candidate responses from the target model using relaxed decoding parameters (high…

Dynamic Target Attack
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Llama 3.2 1B, Mistral 7B+3 more
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.2 1B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 7B
  • Vicuna 7B

Reinforced Multi-turn Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), including both proprietary and open-source instruction-tuned models, contain a vulnerability to strategic, multi-turn adversarial attacks. Unlike single-turn prompt injections, this vulnerability is exploited through sequential decision-making where an attacker (or automated agent) utilizes reinforcement learning and tree-based search (e.g., DialTree-RPO) to navigate the dialogue state space. By employing strategies such as intent laundering (framing harmful…

Tree-based Dialogue Reinforced Policy Optimization for Red-Teaming Attacks
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Gemma 2 2B IT+15 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Gemma 2 2B IT
  • Gemma 2 9B IT
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • GPT-oss Safeguard 20B
  • Grok 4
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Llama Guard 3 8B
  • Llama Guard 4 12B
  • Mistral 7B v0.3
  • o3-mini
  • ShieldGemma 9B

Black-Box Fine-Tuning Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) fine-tuning interfaces are vulnerable to a semantic obfuscation attack that bypasses multi-stage safety defenses, including pre-upload data filtering, defensive fine-tuning algorithms, and post-training safety audits. The vulnerability exploits a "self-auditing" flaw where the provider uses the target model (or a similar variant) to screen training data. Attackers can submit a small dataset (approx. 500 samples) where harmful answers are obfuscated using a…

Fine-Tuning Jailbreaks under Highly Constrained Black-Box Settings: A Three-Pronged Approach
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4o Mini+5 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Gemma 1.1 7B IT
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Claude Sonnet 4

Code Agent Executable Jailbreaks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

AI code agents are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks that cause them to generate or complete malicious code. The vulnerability is significantly amplified when a base Large Language Model (LLM) is integrated into an agentic framework that uses multi-step planning and tool-use. Initial safety refusals by the LLM are frequently overturned during subsequent planning or self-correction steps within the agent's reasoning loop.

Breaking the Code: Security Assessment of AI Code Agents Through Systematic Jailbreaking Attacks
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek R1, Dolphin Mistral 24B Venice+6 more
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Dolphin Mistral 24B Venice
  • GPT-4.1
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Mistral Large 2.1
  • o1
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B

Chained Tool-Use Injections

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in tool-enabled Large Language Model (LLM) agents, termed Sequential Tool Attack Chaining (STAC), where a sequence of individually benign tool calls can be orchestrated to achieve a malicious outcome. An attacker can guide an agent through a multi-turn interaction, with each step appearing harmless in isolation. Safety mechanisms that evaluate individual prompts or actions fail to detect the threat because the malicious intent is distributed across the sequence and only…

STAC: When Innocent Tools Form Dangerous Chains to Jailbreak LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 Mini, Llama 3.1 405B Instruct+4 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Mistral Large
  • Mistral Small
  • Qwen 3 32B

LLM Self-Evolving Safety Decline

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), including proprietary and open-weight state-of-the-art systems, are vulnerable to automated, self-evolving adversarial attacks orchestrated by multi-agent frameworks. The vulnerability exists because current safety alignment strategies (RLHF, static safety filters) fail to generalize against the "SafeEvalAgent" attack vector. In this vector, an "Analyst" agent analyzes model refusals to iteratively refine attack strategies, while a "Specialist" agent grounds these…

SafeEvalAgent: Toward Agentic and Self-Evolving Safety Evaluation of LLMs
Evaluated models: GPT-5, GPT-5 Chat Latest, Gemini 2.5 Pro+7 more
  • GPT-5
  • GPT-5 Chat Latest
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Grok 4
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Llama 4 Scout
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • DeepSeek V3.1

Self-Amplifying Memory Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing long-term memory or Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) are vulnerable to context-dependent memory injection attacks. Unlike traditional prompt injections that are overtly malicious, this vulnerability involves injecting records that appear benign and coherent in isolation—thereby bypassing standard perplexity filters and static content moderation (e.g., LlamaGuard). These records contain "sleeping" malicious logic that is only activated when…

A-memguard: A proactive defense framework for llm-based agent memory
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B

RL-driven Formalized Prompt Jailbreaking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) where a harmful instruction can be obfuscated through a multi-step formalization process, bypassing safety mechanisms. The attack, named Prompt Jailbreaking via Semantic and Structural Formalization (PASS), uses a Reinforcement Learning (RL) agent to dynamically construct an adversarial prompt. The agent learns to apply a sequence of actions—such as symbolic abstraction, logical encoding, mathematical representation, metaphorical…

Formalization Driven LLM Prompt Jailbreaking via Reinforcement Learning
Evaluated models: DeepSeek V3, Qwen 3 14B

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.