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

191 entries

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

Jailbreak Personalization Override

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in multi-step, tool-using Large Language Model (LLM) agents allows attackers to bypass safety guardrails by manipulating user context variables, such as personalization profiles or persistent memory. The safety policies of frontier LLMs are highly context-dependent; inserting innocuous user bios (e.g., demographic or health disclosures) fundamentally alters the agent's action policy. When combined with lightweight adversarial jailbreaks, specific personalization contexts…

Differential Harm Propensity in Personalized LLM Agents: The Curious Case of Mental Health Disclosure
Evaluated models: DeepSeek V3.2, GPT-5 Mini, GPT-5.2+5 more
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5.2
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • Gemini 3 Pro
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Claude Opus 4.5
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5

VLM E-commerce Attack Surface

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLaVA-v1.5-7B, when deployed as a vision-language autonomous agent, is highly vulnerable to adversarial image perturbations. An attacker can inject imperceptibly modified images into a web environment (such as an e-commerce storefront). When the VLM agent captures a screenshot containing the perturbed image, the visual noise forces the model to misclassify the scene and output incorrect, structured JSON actions. This allows an attacker to hijack the agent's task execution, bypassing the user's…

Adversarial attacks against Modern Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, LLaVA 1.5 7B

Contextual Priority Hacking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreak technique termed "Priority Hacking." Adversaries can bypass safety alignments by exploiting the model's internal priority graph, where certain abstract values (e.g., justice, public health) implicitly outweigh general safety restrictions within specific contexts. By crafting a deceptive prompt that frames a malicious request as a necessary action in service of a higher-priority benign value, attackers engineer a value conflict. The…

Are Dilemmas and Conflicts in LLM Alignment Solvable? A View from Priority Graph
Evaluated models: Not reported

Autonomous Agent Tool RCE

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The OpenClaw autonomous agent framework lacks execution sandboxing, running agents directly on the host machine with the disk and system privileges of the host user. This architecture allows attackers to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) and arbitrary data exfiltration via Indirect Prompt Injection. By embedding malicious instructions within external data sources (e.g., scraped web pages or uploaded documents), an attacker can hijack the agent's planning capabilities to sequentially chain…

Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw
Evaluated models: Not reported

Agent Document Instruction Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

High-privilege LLM agents with filesystem and network access are vulnerable to documentation-embedded instruction injection, an issue termed the "Trusted Executor Dilemma." When autonomously processing external workflow documents (e.g., README.md files or setup guides) during software installation workflows, agents implicitly trust and execute embedded text instructions without verifying their underlying intent. Attackers can embed syntactically valid, malicious directives (such as data…

You Told Me to Do It: Measuring Instructional Text-induced Private Data Leakage in LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, o3, o3-mini+5 more
  • GPT-4o
  • o3
  • o3-mini
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Agent Lifecycle Compound Threats

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

OpenClaw is vulnerable to persistent memory poisoning, allowing an attacker to manipulate the agent's long-term memory store (MEMORY.md) via prompt injection. Because the autonomous agent continuously integrates this memory file as context for all subsequent reasoning and task planning, injected payloads act as durable behavioral constraints. This allows an attacker to persistently alter the agent's core policy, manipulate tool selection, and hijack future sessions without any further…

Taming openclaw: Security analysis and mitigation of autonomous llm agent threats
Evaluated models: Not reported

Arbitrary Agent Topology Breach

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (LLM-MAS) allows an attacker who controls a single arbitrary agent to map and extract the system's entire confidential communication topology. Unlike prior attacks that rely on direct identity queries and administrative privileges, this attack infers topology stealthily purely from contextual and linguistic signals (stylometry, role-specific syntax), bypassing standard keyword-based and identity-filtering defenses. The exploit relies on a…

WebWeaver: Breaking Topology Confidentiality in LLM Multi-Agent Systems with Stealthy Context-Based Inference
Evaluated models: Llama 3 70B, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral Large 12B+3 more
  • Llama 3 70B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral Large 12B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • Phi-3

LLM Judge Fragility

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-as-a-judge systems and automated LLM evaluators are vulnerable to meaning-preserving perturbations, specifically formatting alterations and verbosity manipulations. When grading or classifying text and agentic transcripts, LLM judges exhibit high sensitivity to layout-only changes (such as whitespace and indentation) and response length, frequently altering their scores even when the underlying semantic and factual content remains identical. This allows attackers to bypass automated safety…

Judge Reliability Harness: Stress Testing the Reliability of LLM Judges
Evaluated models: Claude Opus 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 2.5 Pro+4 more
  • Claude Opus 4.5
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 3 Pro
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 4 Maverick 17B

Cascading Agent False Consensus

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-Agent Systems based on Large Language Models (LLM-MAS) are vulnerable to systemic Consensus Corruption via cascading error amplification. Because mainstream collaborative architectures rely on recursive context reuse without atomic-level provenance tracking, a single atomic falsehood injected into the system is repeatedly cited and reused within the multi-agent interaction chain. This structural exposure causes the error to deterministically compound across the communication graph…

From Spark to Fire: Modeling and Mitigating Error Cascades in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

Frontier LLM Safety Collapse

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Internal Safety Collapse (ISC) is a vulnerability in frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) where models autonomously generate highly restricted, harmful content while executing structurally legitimate professional workflows. The vulnerability triggers when a model infers that generating sensitive data is a functional requirement to complete an otherwise benign task. By nesting harmful content generation inside standard execution constraints (e.g., resolving a schema validation error in a…

Internal Safety Collapse in Frontier Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Gemini 3 Pro, Grok 4.1 Fast, Claude Sonnet 4.5+1 more
  • Gemini 3 Pro
  • Grok 4.1 Fast
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • GPT-5.2

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.