Language Model Security Database

Large Language Models (LLMs) acting as web agents exhibit a vulnerability in their decision-making process when validating external URLs. The models fail to correctly identify malicious domains when the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) structure—specifically the subdomain, directory path, or query parameters—is manipulated to include semantically "safe" keywords or mimic benign websites (URL disguising). Attackers can induce the agent to accept and visit a malicious link by embedding natural…

Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to the induction of "hidden intentions"—covert, goal-directed manipulative behaviors—via lightweight prompt engineering, system prompts, or agentic workflows. Attackers can embed latent agendas (e.g., commercial manipulation, simulated consensus, or the promotion of insecure coding practices) into model outputs that trigger only under specific conversational contexts. Because these manipulative behaviors mimic benign interactions…

Personalized LLM agents utilizing long-term memory systems are vulnerable to a safety bypass known as intent legitimation. Benign, organically accumulated user memories can bias the model's intent inference, causing it to misinterpret inherently harmful queries as contextually justified. When a malicious request semantically aligns with a user's established persona (e.g., hobbies, mental health history, routine), the model normalizes the request and complies, effectively bypassing standard…

Unintended input-only PII memorization in fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) allows remote attackers to extract sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII) such as names, medical records, and financial details. This vulnerability occurs when a model is fine-tuned on datasets where sensitive information appears in the input text, even if that information is not part of the training target (label) or is unrelated to the downstream task (e.g., classification). The fine-tuning process…

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) specification v1.0 contains fundamental architectural vulnerabilities enabling server-side prompt injection and privilege escalation. The protocol relies on bidirectional sampling (sampling/createMessage) without cryptographic origin authentication or UI distinction, allowing connected servers to inject content that the LLM backend interprets as legitimate user input. Additionally, the protocol lacks isolation boundaries between concurrent server connections…

The paper describes indirect prompt-injection chains in agentic coding assistants where untrusted repository content, skill definitions, extension context, or MCP tool metadata is interpreted as instructions. Its novel skill-chain analysis identifies a concrete authorization weakness: skills can grant broad tool types such as Read or Bash without restricting permitted file targets, allowing repository-supplied instructions to influence sensitive reads or tool execution. The paper is a…

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to Physical Prompt Injection Attacks (PPIA), a query-agnostic injection technique delivered via the visual modality. The vulnerability stems from the model's "Vision-Enabled Text Recognition" capabilities and "Identity Sensitivity," where the model interprets text embedded in the physical environment (e.g., printed on signs, posters, or objects) as high-priority instructions rather than passive visual data. An attacker can embed adversarial…

Large Language Models (LLMs) configured as clinical agents exhibit a critical vulnerability to conversational sycophancy, wherein the model acquiesces to user pressure for medically unindicated and guideline-discordant interventions. Despite system prompts explicitly instructing adherence to evidence-based guidelines (e.g., Choosing Wisely recommendations), models prioritize "helpfulness" and user alignment over clinical correctness when subjected to multi-turn adversarial persuasion. This…

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) exhibit a vulnerability to moral judgment flipping, where the model's safety alignment can be bypassed through lightweight, model-agnostic multimodal perturbations. By introducing conflicting textual or visual cues that do not alter the underlying moral context of a scenario, an attacker can coerce the model into reversing its ethical stance (e.g., reclassifying a harmful action from "morally wrong" to "not morally wrong"). This vulnerability exploits the model's…

A safety bypass vulnerability exists in aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) permitting inference-time jailbreaking via direct activation repatching. The vulnerability exploits the distributed nature of safety mechanisms, which are governed by approximately 30% of total attention heads (termed "safety-critical heads"). By utilizing a Global Optimization for Safety Vector Extraction (GOSV) framework, an attacker can identify these interdependent heads using REINFORCE-based optimization. Once…