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

101 entries

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

Evolutionary Hidden Knowledge Recovery

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) subjected to machine unlearning techniques (specifically AltPO, GradDiff, IDKDPO, IDKNLL, UNDIAL, NPO, and SimNPO) contain a vulnerability regarding the persistence of latent knowledge. Despite achieving high "forgetting" scores on standard, benign benchmarks, these models remain susceptible to black-box evolutionary adversarial attacks. An attacker can utilize an automated framework (REBEL) comprising a "Hacker" model and a "Judge" model to iteratively mutate…

REBEL: Hidden Knowledge Recovery via Evolutionary-Based Evaluation Loop
Evaluated models: Not reported

LLM Backdoor Trigger Reconstruction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) subjected to Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) are vulnerable to "sleeper agent" data poisoning attacks. An attacker injects specific trigger phrases into the training corpus, causing the model to learn a conditional policy: behaving normally for standard inputs but executing a malicious target behavior when the trigger is present. These backdoors persist through safety training and alignment. The vulnerability stems from the model's strong memorization of poisoning…

The Trigger in the Haystack: Extracting and Reconstructing LLM Backdoor Triggers
Evaluated models: Gemma 3 270M IT, DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B, Phi-4 Mini Instruct+4 more
  • Gemma 3 270M IT
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B
  • Phi-4 Mini Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Phi-4 Reasoning Plus
  • Llama 2 7B Backdoor DEPLOYMENT
  • OpenHermes 13B Backdoor DEPLOYMENT

Zero-Training Cross-Domain Inversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A cryptographic weakness exists in the privacy assumptions of vector embeddings used in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems and Vector Databases. The vulnerability, designated "Zero2Text," allows an unauthenticated attacker to reconstruct raw text from captured vector embeddings without access to the victim model's parameters, gradients, or training data. Unlike prior embedding inversion attacks that require training large decoders on domain-specific datasets, this vulnerability…

Zero2Text: Zero-Training Cross-Domain Inversion Attacks on Textual Embeddings
Evaluated models: Not reported

Autonomous Agent Prompt Reveal

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) deployments and multi-agent systems where an autonomous attacker agent can systematically extract hidden system prompts through self-evolving interaction strategies. The vulnerability leverages a "JustAsk" framework which utilizes Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) exploration to dynamically select and refine attack vectors from a hierarchical taxonomy of 14 atomic skills (e.g., structural formatting, authority appeals) and 14 multi-turn…

Just Ask: Curious Code Agents Reveal System Prompts in Frontier LLMs
Evaluated models: o1, Llama 3.1 70B Hanami X1, Phi-4+38 more
  • o1
  • Llama 3.1 70B Hanami X1
  • Phi-4
  • Aion 1.0
  • Sonar Pro
  • Command A
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • Mercury
  • Hunyuan A13B Instruct
  • UI-TARS 1.5 7B
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Jamba Mini 1.7
  • Hermes 4 70B
  • Step 3
  • LongCat Flash Chat
  • Tongyi DeepResearch 30B-A3B
  • Cydonia 24B v4.1
  • ERNIE 4.5 21B-A3B Thinking
  • Granite 4.0 H Micro
  • LFM2 8B-A1B
  • Nova Premier v1
  • Kimi K2 Thinking
  • KAT Coder Pro
  • Cogito v2.1 671B
  • Gemini 3 Pro Preview
  • Grok 4.1 Fast
  • Claude Opus 4.5
  • TNG R1T Chimera
  • Intellect 3
  • DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
  • Trinity Mini
  • Mistral Large 2512
  • DeepSeek V3.1 Nex N1
  • MiMo V2 Flash
  • GLM-4.7
  • MiniMax M2.1
  • Seed 1.6
  • Molmo 2 8B
  • GPT-5.2 Codex

Attention Exposes Membership

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs) contain a privacy vulnerability within their self-attention mechanisms that allows for Membership Inference Attacks (MIA). Pre-training induces distinct, highly structured, and concentrated attention patterns for data samples included in the training set, differentiating them from non-member samples which exhibit noisier, less consistent attention flows. An attacker with white-box access to the model parameters (specifically attention weight…

AttenMIA: LLM Membership Inference Attack through Attention Signals
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 2 13B, Pythia 1.4B+11 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Pythia 1.4B
  • Pythia 2.8B
  • Pythia 6.9B
  • Pythia 12B
  • GPT-NeoX 20B
  • OPT 1.3B
  • OPT 2.7B
  • OPT 6.7B
  • OPT 13B
  • OPT 30B
  • OPT 66B
  • GPT-2

LLM Input PII Leakage

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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…

Unintended Memorization of Sensitive Information in Fine-Tuned Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.2 1B

MCP Server-Side Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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…

Breaking the Protocol: Security Analysis of the Model Context Protocol Specification and Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Tool-Integrated LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Llama 3.1 70B

Activation-Level Privacy Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Conversational Large Language Model (LLM) agents integrated with privileged data sources (e.g., medical records, organizational emails) are vulnerable to contextually inappropriate information disclosure due to failures in enforcing Contextual Integrity (CI) norms. Standard semantic input/output filters and generic safety guardrails (e.g., Llama Guard) fail to detect "mosaic attacks" and multi-turn conversational manipulation. In these attacks, adversaries decompose a malicious query into a…

NeuroFilter: Privacy Guardrails for Conversational LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 7B+3 more
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 72B

Agent Confused Deputy Escalation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) orchestrated by Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a Confused Deputy privilege escalation attack. This vulnerability arises when an untrusted or low-privilege agent exploits the inter-agent communication channel (e.g., broadcast or peer-to-peer messaging) to manipulate a high-privilege trusted agent into executing sensitive tools on its behalf. The root cause is the lack of mandatory access control policies governing agent-to-agent interactions; trusted…

Taming Various Privilege Escalation in LLM-Based Agent Systems: A Mandatory Access Control Framework
Evaluated models: o1

CoT Trajectory Data Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) employing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) generation are vulnerable to sensitive information leakage through intermediate reasoning steps, even after undergoing standard unlearning procedures (such as Gradient Ascent, Direct Preference Optimization, or KL Minimization). While these fine-tuning-based unlearning methods typically suppress sensitive content in the final generated answer, they fail to purge the information from the model's internal reasoning trajectory…

STaR: Sensitive Trajectory Regulation for Unlearning in Large Reasoning Models
Evaluated models: o1, DeepSeek R1

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.