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

154 entries

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

Persistent Memory Poisoning in LLM Agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper describes and evaluates a reproducible application-layer weakness in agents with persistent memory: untrusted external content can cross the memory-write boundary, be stored as trusted factual, experience, or procedural memory, and influence later sessions. It identifies four write channels—explicit writes, policy-driven writes, compaction, and experience-to-procedure synthesis—and six attack classes. For safe defensive testing, use MPBench’s two-phase structure in an isolated agent…

From Untrusted Input to Trusted Memory: A Systematic Study of Memory Poisoning Attacks in LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 120B

Sleeper Memory Poisoning in LLM Agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper presents a specific black-box indirect prompt-injection evaluation: attacker-controlled external content can cause a memory-enabled assistant or external memory manager to persist a fabricated user memory, which may later be retrieved in a separate session and steer responses or agent actions. The authors evaluate injection, retrieval, and conditional adversarial usage separately across synthetic document and future-session datasets. The released repository provides defensive…

Hidden in Memory: Sleeper Memory Poisoning in LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-5.4, GPT-5.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6+3 more
  • GPT-5.4
  • GPT-5.5
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro
  • Kimi-K2.6
  • DeepSeek V4-Pro

Indirect Agent Privilege Exposure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Autonomous LLM agents deployed in dynamic, multi-step tool-calling environments are highly vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injections (IPI) embedded in external content. Surface-level defensive prompts and monitoring mechanisms (such as Prompt Warning, the Sandwich Method, Spotlighting, Keyword Filtering, and LLM-as-a-Judge) consistently fail to prevent exploitation and occasionally exacerbate the vulnerability by introducing adversarial distraction. While compromised agents exhibit…

Your Agent is More Brittle Than You Think: Uncovering Indirect Injection Vulnerabilities in Agentic LLMs
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 14B, Qwen 2.5 32B, Qwen 3 4B+6 more
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • GLM 4 9B
  • Gemma 3 12B
  • Mistral 7B

Agent Implicit Doc Execution

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based coding agents are vulnerable to Document-Driven Implicit Payload Execution (DDIPE) via supply-chain poisoning of third-party agent skills. Attackers can embed malicious logic directly into legitimate-looking code examples and configuration templates within skill documentation files (e.g., SKILL.md). Because coding agents ingest this metadata into their context windows and treat the documentation as an authoritative reference, the underlying LLM silently reproduces and executes the…

Supply-Chain Poisoning Attacks Against LLM Coding Agent Skill Ecosystems
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, GLM-4.7, MiniMax M2.5+2 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • GLM-4.7
  • MiniMax M2.5
  • GPT-5.4
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro

Observation Poisons Agent Memory

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Memory-augmented LLM web agents utilizing raw trajectory memory are vulnerable to Environment-injected Trajectory-based Agent Memory Poisoning (eTAMP). Attackers can embed malicious instructions within user-generated web content (e.g., product pages, forum posts). When the agent processes this content during a routine task, the instructions are passively ingested into its raw trajectory memory. During subsequent, entirely separate tasks on different websites, semantic retrieval mechanisms pull…

Poison Once, Exploit Forever: Environment-Injected Memory Poisoning Attacks on Web Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-5 Mini, GPT-5.2, GPT-oss 120B+3 more
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5.2
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B
  • Qwen3-VL-32B
  • Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Agent Skill Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based personal agents are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) defense bypasses via declarative context reframing and implicit file provenance trust. Attackers can bypass agent safety filters by phrasing malicious instructions as declarative compliance alerts rather than imperative commands. Because agents are designed to report discrepancies as expected behavior, declarative framing bypasses intent-sensitive safety mechanisms. Additionally, attackers can exploit the agent's…

ClawSafety: Safe LLMs, Unsafe Agents
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek V3+2 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Kimi K2.5
  • GPT-5.1

LLM Judge Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Generative reward models deployed as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) evaluators contain a logic bypass vulnerability where superficial "master key" inputs trigger false positive rewards regardless of actual response quality. Instead of evaluating the candidate's output, large judge models are inadvertently triggered by specific token sequences to solve the prompt independently. This allows malicious actors or policy models undergoing reinforcement learning to consistently game the reward signal by…

Security in LLM-as-a-Judge: A Comprehensive SoK
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, o1, Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • o1
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct

Agentic Robot Instruction Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are vulnerable to targeted, low-budget textual perturbations in their natural-language instruction inputs, which can maliciously alter sequential decision-making and downstream physical robotic behavior. Because VLA policies tightly couple language, perception, and control, bounded edits—such as character-level typos, token attribute swaps, or prompt-level uncertainty clauses—propagate through the model's execution trajectory. This allows a black-box…

SABER: A Stealthy Agentic Black-Box Attack Framework for Vision-Language-Action Models
Evaluated models: Not reported

MCP Tool-Metadata Prompt Injection in Coding Agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper presents a controlled, reproducible evaluation in which untrusted MCP tool descriptions contain hidden instructions that attempt to induce coding agents to access files, invoke other tools, create deceptive links, or execute remote scripts. The authors report that several clients accepted poisoned metadata without adequate validation or parameter visibility; Cursor 1.6.45 was reported unsafe across all four tested vectors. These are paper-reported results from isolated local tests…

Are AI-assisted Development Tools Immune to Prompt Injection?
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.5, Grok Code Fast 1, Gemini 2.5 Pro+1 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Grok Code Fast 1
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Claude Opus 4

Profit-Driven Agent Exploitation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based autonomous agents deployed in multi-turn, structured environments are vulnerable to adaptive, profit-driven semantic exploitation. Rather than utilizing traditional malformed prompt injections or jailbreaks, an attacker can leverage valid interaction channels to execute social engineering, protocol spoofing, and authority impersonation tactics. By strategically shaping the environment's context—such as feigning technical constraints, fabricating evaluation harnesses, or manipulating…

Profit is the Red Team: Stress-Testing Agents in Strategic Economic Interactions
Evaluated models: Not reported

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.