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

58 entries

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

Persistent Agent Context Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Conventional LLM agent architectures suffer from a working memory contamination vulnerability due to indiscriminate memory accumulation. When these agents retrieve external data via tools (e.g., web search, reading emails), the entire raw output is appended directly to their continuous context window. If the external data contains an Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) payload, the malicious instruction persists in the agent's working memory across its entire multi-step reasoning workflow. This…

AgentSys: Secure and Dynamic LLM Agents Through Explicit Hierarchical Memory Management
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4o, GPT-5.1+3 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5.1
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

AI Persuasion Trust Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Adversarial Explanation Attacks (AEAs) introduce a behavioral vulnerability in Large Language Model (LLM) based decision-support systems where the communication channel between the AI and the user is exploited to induce trust in incorrect model predictions. By manipulating the framing of an explanation—specifically its reasoning mode, evidence type, communication style, and presentation format—an attacker can dissociate the perceived plausibility of an explanation from its factual correctness…

When AI Persuades: Adversarial Explanation Attacks on Human Trust in AI-Assisted Decision Making
Evaluated models: Llama 3.3 70B

Pre-Task Persuasion Propagation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A behavioral vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) agents where task-irrelevant persuasion introduced in prior interactions or system contexts induces a persistent "belief state" that alters downstream task execution. This phenomenon, termed "Persuasion Propagation," occurs when an agent adopts a stance on a controversial topic (e.g., politics, privacy) that is semantically unrelated to its primary function (e.g., coding, medical research). This adopted stance acts as a latent…

Persuasion Propagation in LLM Agents
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B

Adversarial Context Reasoning Brittleness

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) optimized via Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) are vulnerable to context pollution in their reasoning traces. An attacker can induce catastrophic reasoning failure by injecting locally coherent but logically or mathematically corrupted snippets into the model's Chain-of-Thought (CoT) or conditioning context. Because standard RLVR optimizes for final-answer correctness strictly under clean conditioning, the models treat the visible trajectory…

Learning Robust Reasoning through Guided Adversarial Self-Play
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B, DeepScaleR 1.5B, Qwen 3 4B+1 more
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B
  • DeepScaleR 1.5B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B

Payment Protocol Whisper Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Google Agent Payments Protocol (AP2), specifically within the reference implementation built using the Google Agent Development Kit (ADK) and Gemini models, contains vulnerabilities allowing for both indirect and direct prompt injection. The architecture fails to sufficiently isolate the Large Language Model (LLM) context from untrusted external data sources and user inputs.

Whispers of Wealth: Red-Teaming Google's Agent Payments Protocol via Prompt Injection
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash

Adaptive Multimodal Reasoning Jailbreaks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper reports a black-box jailbreak evaluation in which a ReAct-style loop adaptively rewrites unsafe text prompts and selectively applies blur, DCT filtering, or recoloring to image regions identified as safety-sensitive. The combined cross-modal strategy is intended to make harmful image-text requests appear less objectionable to a vision-language model while preserving enough semantics to elicit an answer. This is a specific, security-relevant evaluation, although the reported results…

Jailbreaks on Vision Language Model via Multimodal Reasoning
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.0 Flash

LLM Router Rerouting

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM routing systems are vulnerable to adversarial rerouting attacks where malicious triggers prepended to user queries manipulate the router's model-selection mechanism. Because LLM routers function as classifiers evaluating query complexity to balance computational cost and response quality, an attacker can craft adversarial prefixes that distort the query's latent semantic representation. This exploits the router's decision boundaries, forcing the system to misclassify the input and redirect…

RerouteGuard: Understanding and Mitigating Adversarial Risks for LLM Routing
Evaluated models: GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-5+2 more
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Mixtral 8x7B

LLM Judge Framing Bias

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based evaluation systems ("LLM-as-a-Judge") exhibit a structural vulnerability termed "Framing Bias," wherein the model produces logically contradictory judgments depending on the syntactic framing of the evaluation prompt. Specifically, when assessing the same content using predicate-positive (P) framing (e.g., "Is this toxic?") versus predicate-negative (¬P) framing (e.g., "Is this non-toxic?"), models frequently fail to invert their binary decisions, leading to inconsistency rates…

When Wording Steers the Evaluation: Framing Bias in LLM judges
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 1B Instruct, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct+11 more
  • Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • o4-mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5

Invisible Headline Trading Loss

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Improper input validation in Large Language Model (LLM) integrated Algorithmic Trading Systems (ATS) allows remote attackers to manipulate trading decisions via crafted "adversarial news" headlines. The vulnerability exists when ATS pipelines ingest financial news data via standard scraping libraries (e.g., Scrapy, BeautifulSoup, Cheerio) and pass raw HTML or non-normalized text directly to LLMs (such as FinBERT, FinGPT, or GPT-4) for entity recognition (stock-name association) and sentiment…

Adversarial News and Lost Profits: Manipulating Headlines in LLM-Driven Algorithmic Trading
Evaluated models: FinBERT, FinGPT, FinLLaMA+7 more
  • FinBERT
  • FinGPT
  • FinLLaMA
  • o3
  • o3 Pro
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4o Mini High
  • GPT-5
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro

AI Agent Structural Blindspot

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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…

Structural Representations for Cross-Attack Generalization in AI Agent Threat Detection
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.