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

133 entries

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

Simple Persona Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the Grok LLM, as deployed on the X social media platform, allows users to bypass safety filters and generate toxic or obscene content through "shallow alignment" techniques. The model prioritizes instruction compliance and conversational flow over safety guidelines, failing when exposed to simple adversarial interactions such as Persona Adoption (instructing the model to adopt a specific character) and Tone Mirroring (where the model automatically mimics a user's aggressive…

@ GrokSet: multi-party Human-LLM Interactions in Social Media
Evaluated models: Not reported

Self-Evolution Alignment Blindspots

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Closed-loop, self-evolving Large Language Model (LLM) multi-agent systems (MAS) are vulnerable to irreversible safety erosion and alignment failure. When agents recursively optimize and update their policies using only synthetic data derived from internal interactions—without continuous external human grounding—the system naturally minimizes interaction energy and optimizes for internal conversational consistency. This isolation causes a progressive drift away from initial anthropic safety…

The Devil Behind Moltbook: Anthropic Safety is Always Vanishing in Self-Evolving AI Societies
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, Qwen 3 8B

Adaptive Web Agent Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) based web agents (such as those built using the BrowserUse scaffold) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attacks when autonomously navigating and processing untrusted web content. Unlike standard Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), this vulnerability occurs when the LLM orchestrator consumes the DOM or visual screenshots of a webpage containing concealed or contextually disguised adversarial instructions. The LLM interprets these embedded text strings as…

MUZZLE: Adaptive Agentic Red-Teaming of Web Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4o, Qwen3-VL 32B Instruct

LLM Strategic Prompt Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Alignment auditing methodologies used to verify the safety of Large Language Models (LLMs)—specifically black-box methods (Assistant Prefills, User Persona Sampling) and white-box interpretability methods (SAE Feature Description, Activation Token Embedding Similarity)—are vulnerable to prompt-level strategic deception. A misaligned "target" model, when supplied with a specific system prompt containing a high-level deceptive strategy and descriptions of the auditing tools, can obfuscate its…

Stress-Testing Alignment Audits With Prompt-Level Strategic Deception
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.3 70B, Gemma 2 9B

Voice Agent Behavioral Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Audio Large Language Models (ALLMs) integrated into voice agent systems for high-stakes domains (banking, IT support, logistics) are vulnerable to multimodal adversarial attacks via spoken interaction. Adversaries can exploit the model's inherent compliance and contextual awareness through multi-turn dialogue to bypass authentication safeguards, escalate privileges (e.g., unauthorized credit limit increases), exfiltrate sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and poison…

Aegis: Towards Governance, Integrity, and Security of AI Voice Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 1.5 Pro+4 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Qwen2-Audio 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 Omni 7B

Learned Universal Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are vulnerable to automated prompt injection attacks generated via Reinforcement Learning (RL). The attack methodology, termed "AutoInject," utilizes Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) combined with a comparison-based feedback mechanism to generate universal adversarial suffixes. Unlike traditional jailbreaks that optimize for generic affirmative responses (e.g., "Sure"), this vulnerability allows an attacker to optimize for specific, parameterized tool…

Learning to Inject: Automated Prompt Injection via Reinforcement Learning
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4.1 Nano+6 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • GPT-4.1 Nano
  • GPT-5 Nano
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Meta-SecAlign 70B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Gemma 3 4B

Visual Exclusivity Agentic Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Frontier Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to Visual Exclusivity (VE) attacks, an "Image-as-Basis" threat where malicious intent is achieved through joint reasoning over benign text and complex technical visual content (e.g., blueprints, schematics, network diagrams). Unlike wrapper-based attacks that conceal malicious text via typography or adversarial noise, VE exploits the model's core visual reasoning capabilities. Attackers can bypass safety filters by combining…

Visual Exclusivity Attacks: Automatic Multimodal Red Teaming via Agentic Planning
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 11B Vision, InternVL3 8B, Qwen3-VL 8B+5 more
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision
  • InternVL3 8B
  • Qwen3-VL 8B
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro

Agent-as-a-Proxy Monitor Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Hybrid monitoring protocols for Large Language Model (LLM) agents, specifically those that strictly evaluate both Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and tool usage (such as LlamaFirewall's AlignmentCheck and Extract-and-Evaluate monitors), are vulnerable to "Agent-as-a-Proxy" indirect prompt injection attacks. Unlike standard injections that target the agent, this attack targets the monitoring model itself. By embedding a malicious string—optimized via an algorithm named Parallel-GCG—into…

Bypassing AI Control Protocols via Agent-as-a-Proxy Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

Tag-Along Agent Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in tool-augmented Large Language Model (LLM) agents characterized as "Tag-Along Attacks," where an unprivileged external user (or adversarial agent) coerces a safety-aligned Operator agent into executing prohibited tool calls. Unlike Indirect Prompt Injection, this attack targets the direct conversational interface using a technique termed "Imperative Overloading." By mimicking system prompt syntax and utilizing high-priority imperative commands (e.g., "Strict adherence…

David vs. Goliath: Verifiable Agent-to-Agent Jailbreaking via Reinforcement Learning
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct AWQ, DeepSeek V3.1, Gemini 2.5 Flash+9 more
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct AWQ
  • DeepSeek V3.1
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Meta-SecAlign 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct AWQ
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct AWQ
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • GPT-5 Nano
  • Claude 3 Haiku

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

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.