Language Model Security Database

A vulnerability in AI agent threat detection systems relying on standard conversational tokenization allows attackers to bypass security monitors and execute structural attacks, such as tool hijacking and data exfiltration. Because traditional NLP-based detectors focus on linguistic patterns (surface language) rather than execution flow, an attacker can orchestrate malicious multi-step tool sequences using entirely benign natural language. This structural blindness causes cross-attack…

Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating in tool-augmented environments are susceptible to "Contextual Fragility" and multi-turn "long-chain" exploitation. Existing safety mechanisms predominantly function on a stateless, atomic paradigm, evaluating individual input-output pairs in isolation. This allows an adversary to orchestrate complex attack trajectories where malicious intent is distributed across multiple, individually benign steps (a "Domino Effect"). Consequently, an attacker can…

A black-box guardrail reverse-engineering vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) serving systems that employ output filtering mechanisms. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to replicate the proprietary decision-making policy and rule sets of the target's safety guardrail without direct access to model parameters. This is achieved through a technique termed Guardrail Reverse-engineering Attack (GRA), which utilizes a reinforcement learning framework combined with genetic…

Multiple open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs)—specifically those prioritizing capability over safety alignment—exhibit a critical vulnerability to adaptive multi-turn prompt injection and jailbreak attacks. While these models effectively reject isolated, single-turn adversarial inputs (averaging ~13.11% Attack Success Rate), they fail to maintain safety guardrails and policy enforcement across extended conversational contexts. By leveraging iterative strategies such as "Crescendo" (gradual…

A vulnerability exists in certain Large Language Models and diffusion models due to discontinuities in their latent space, which arise from data sparsity during training. An attacker can craft inputs containing lexically rare or semantically ambiguous constructs to guide the model's inference process toward these unstable, poorly-conditioned regions. This technique, termed "Alignment Degradation Induction," can degrade or bypass safety alignment mechanisms. Through iterative, multi-turn…

Mobile LLM-based agents (including Mobile-Agent-E, AppAgent, AutoDroid, and others) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks delivered via untrusted third-party mobile channels, such as in-app advertisements, system notifications, and embedded webviews. These agents utilize Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to perceive the device state via screenshots or accessibility trees. The vulnerability exists because the agents concatenate the user's prompt ($p$) with the environmental…

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically variants of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, OLMo-2, and Llama-4, are vulnerable to accelerated adaptive adversarial attacks due to excessive information leakage in observable output signals. When these models expose "thinking processes" (Chain-of-Thought traces) or token-level log-probabilities (logits) to the end user, they leak significant mutual information $I(Z;T)$ regarding the model's safety state or hidden instructions. This leakage allows adaptive attack…

Mamba-2 and hybrid Transformer-Mamba-2 distilled Large Language Model (LLM) architectures exhibit a distinct architectural susceptibility to Latent Injection and ANSI Escape sequence prompt injection attacks. Comparative analysis reveals that models incorporating Mamba state-space components (specifically distilled variants like Llamba-3B and base Mamba models) fail to maintain adversarial robustness levels comparable to pure Transformer baselines (such as Llama-3.2) when subjected to indirect…

A vulnerability termed "Controlled-Release Prompting" allows attackers to bypass lightweight input filters (prompt guards) deployed in front of Large Language Models (LLMs). The attack exploits the computational resource asymmetry between the resource-constrained guard model and the highly capable target model. Attackers encode malicious instructions using obfuscation techniques—such as substitution ciphers (Timed-Release) or verbose character descriptions (Spaced-Release)—that require…

Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems are vulnerable to compositional privacy leakage, a flaw where sensitive information is exposed through the aggregation of individually benign responses from distinct agents. In distributed architectures where data is siloed (e.g., distinct agents handling HR, Finance, and IT logs), individual agents lack a global view of the user’s accumulated knowledge or the sensitive attributes derivable from cross-agent data combinations. An attacker can…