Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Updated 7/21/2026, database is current

Language Model Security Database

959 research findings · 1077 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

323 entries

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

Updated 12/29/2024

Large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to "editing attacks," where malicious actors manipulate the model's knowledge base to inject misinformation or bias. This is achieved by using existing knowledge editing techniques to subtly alter the model's internal representations, causing it to generate outputs reflecting the injected content, even on seemingly unrelated prompts. The attack can be remarkably stealthy, with minimal impact on the model's overall performance in other areas.

Can Editing LLMs Inject Harm?
Affects: Alpaca 7B, Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B +2 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 7/14/2025

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to adversarial attacks that utilize low-perplexity prompts to elicit unsafe content. These prompts, while statistically likely to occur in normal conversation, can trigger the generation of harmful or toxic outputs that evade standard safety filters. The vulnerability stems from the model's inability to reliably distinguish between benign and malicious intents within the statistical distribution of natural language.

ASTPrompter: Weakly Supervised Automated Language Model Red-Teaming to Identify Low-Perplexity Toxic Prompts
Affects: Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 7B +1 more

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) used for code generation are vulnerable to Malicious Programming Prompts (MaPP), where an attacker injects a short string (under 500 bytes) into the prompt, causing the LLM to generate code containing vulnerabilities while maintaining functional correctness. The attack exploits the LLM's ability to follow instructions, even those inserted maliciously, to embed unintended behaviors. The injected code can range from general vulnerabilities (e.g., setting a…

MaPPing Your Model: Assessing the Impact of Adversarial Attacks on LLM-based Programming Assistants
Affects: Claude 3 Haiku, Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3 Sonnet +4 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/29/2024

A training-time attack against open-source LLMs that injects adversarial embeddings into the model's token embeddings without modifying model weights. This allows an attacker to introduce backdoors, jailbreaks, or prompt stealing capabilities by simply modifying specific token embeddings within the model file, maintaining model utility for non-triggered inputs. The attack leverages soft prompt tuning to optimize adversarial embeddings, which are then assigned to chosen trigger tokens.

Sos! soft prompt attack against open-source large language models
Affects: Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 7B, Mistral 7B Instruct +2 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/29/2024

Appending a single whitespace character (space) or certain punctuation marks to the end of an LLM's input template can bypass safety mechanisms and cause the model to generate unsafe, biased, or factually incorrect outputs, even if the original prompt was benign. This vulnerability is due to the statistical properties of single-character tokens in the model's training data, causing unintended behavior in the model's token prediction.

Single character perturbations break llm alignment

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/29/2024

Large Language Models (LLMs) fine-tuned using chat templates are vulnerable to ChatBug, allowing malicious actors to bypass safety mechanisms by crafting prompts that intentionally deviate from the expected template format or overflow message fields. This exploits the LLM’s reliance on the template structure without enforcing similar constraints on user input.

ChatBug: A Common Vulnerability of Aligned LLMs Induced by Chat Templates
Affects: Claude 2.1, GPT-3.5 Turbo

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit increased vulnerability to adversarial prompts employing code-switching techniques, where multiple languages are interwoven within a single query. This vulnerability stems from an unintended correlation between the resource availability of the languages used in the prompt and the LLM's safety alignment. LLMs trained on imbalanced multilingual data are more susceptible to attacks leveraging low-resource languages, resulting in a higher rate of unsafe or…

Code-Switching Red-Teaming: LLM Evaluation for Safety and Multilingual Understanding

Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in LLM finetuning APIs allows covert malicious finetuning. Attackers can create a dataset where individual data points appear innocuous but, when used for finetuning, teach the LLM to respond to encoded harmful requests with encoded harmful responses. This bypasses existing safety checks and evaluations because the training data appears benign.

Covert malicious finetuning: Challenges in safeguarding llm adaptation
Affects: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, Llama 2 70B

Source: arXiv

Updated 4/12/2025

Large Language Models (LLMs) used to control robots exhibit biases leading to discriminatory and unsafe behaviors. When provided with personal characteristics (e.g., race, gender, disability), LLMs generate biased outputs resulting in discriminatory actions (e.g., assigning lower rescue priority to certain groups) and accept or deem feasible dangerous or unlawful instructions (e.g., removing a person's mobility aid).

Llm-driven robots risk enacting discrimination, violence, and unlawful actions
Affects: GPT-3.5, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 +1 more

Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems utilizing LangChain allows for indirect jailbreaks of Large Language Models (LLMs). By poisoning the external knowledge base accessed by the LLM through LangChain, attackers can manipulate the LLM's responses, causing it to generate malicious or inappropriate content. The attack exploits the LLM's reliance on the external knowledge base and bypasses direct prompt-based jailbreak defenses.

Poisoned langchain: Jailbreak llms by langchain
Affects: ChatGLM2 6B, ChatGLM3 6B, ERNIE 3.5 +3 more

Source: arXiv

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.