Language Model Security Database

Large Language Models (LLMs) implementing "Thinking Mode" (also known as Reasoning Mode or Chain-of-Thought) exhibit a heightened susceptibility to jailbreak attacks compared to their non-reasoning counterparts. When a model is prompted to reason step-by-step (often delimited by specific tokens like <think> and </think>), the internal reasoning process frequently overrides safety alignment training. Research indicates that during the generation of the thinking chain, the model often…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to automated adversarial attacks that systematically combine multiple jailbreaking "primitives" into complex prompt chains. A dynamic optimization engine can generate and test billions of unique combinations of techniques (e.g., low-resource language translation, payload splitting, role-playing) to bypass safety guardrails. This combinatorial approach differs from manual red-teaming by systematically exploring the attack surface, achieving…

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) employed in autonomous driving (AD) systems are vulnerable to a physically realizable adversarial patch attack dubbed "PhysPatch." This vulnerability exists because MLLMs inherit susceptibility to visual adversarial perturbations from their vision backbones. The attack utilizes a semantic-aware mask initialization strategy combined with a potential field algorithm to identify physically plausible regions for patch placement within a driving scene (e.g…

A vulnerability exists in the tool selection mechanisms of Large Language Model (LLM) agents, identified as the "Attractive Metadata Attack" (AMA). This flaw allows an adversary to manipulate the metadata (names, descriptions, and parameter schemas) of malicious external tools to statistically maximize the likelihood of their selection by the agent, without requiring prompt injection or access to model internals. The vulnerability exploits the agent’s semantic scoring function used to map user…

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) can be instructed via a single system prompt to act as autonomous adversarial agents. These agents engage in multi-turn persuasive dialogues to systematically bypass the safety mechanisms of target language models. The LRM autonomously plans and executes the attack by initiating a benign conversation and gradually escalating the harmfulness of its requests, thereby circumventing defenses that are not robust to sustained, context-aware persuasive attacks. This…

A logic-based jailbreak vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) known as "PUZZLED," where safety alignment mechanisms are bypassed by embedding harmful instructions within word-based puzzles. The attacker identifies sensitive keywords in a malicious prompt, masks them (e.g., replacing "bomb" with "[WORD1]"), and presents the masked terms as a cognitive task—specifically Word Searches, Anagrams, or Crosswords—accompanied by linguistic clues (word length, part-of-speech, and…

A vulnerability exists in multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) that allows for safety alignment bypass through a technique named Activation-Guided Local Editing (AGILE). The attack uses white-box access to a source model's internal states (activations and attention scores) to craft a transferable text-based prompt that elicits harmful content.

Large Language Models (LLMs) utilizing Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and other safety alignment techniques are vulnerable to "CognitiveAttack," a jailbreak vector that exploits synergistic cognitive biases. The vulnerability exists because models internalize human-like reasoning fallacies during pre-training and alignment. Adversaries can bypass safety guardrails by rewriting harmful instructions to trigger specific psychological heuristics—specifically through the…

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Text-to-Image (T2I) models are vulnerable to jailbreaking through prompt-based attacks that use narrative framing, semantic substitution, and context diffusion to bypass safety moderation pipelines. These attacks do not require specialized knowledge or technical expertise. Attackers can embed harmful requests within benign narratives, frame them as fictional or professional inquiries, or use euphemistic language to circumvent input filters and output…

LLM-powered agentic systems that use external tools are vulnerable to prompt injection attacks that cause them to bypass their explicit policy instructions. The vulnerability can be exploited through both direct user interaction and indirect injection, where malicious instructions are embedded in external data sources processed by the agent (e.g., documents, API responses, webpages). These attacks cause agents to perform prohibited actions, leak confidential data, and adopt unauthorized…