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

55 entries

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

MAS Pipeline Weak Links

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Centralized Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) architectures, specifically those implemented using frameworks such as Magentic-One, LangGraph, and OpenAI Agents, contain design-level vulnerabilities facilitating safety alignment bypasses. Two primary mechanisms drive this vulnerability: 1. Context Fragmentation via Atomic Delegation: The orchestrator decomposes adversarial prompts into atomic, granular sub-tasks (e.g., "click button," "write function header") before delegating them to sub-agents. These…

Exposing Weak Links in Multi-Agent Systems under Adversarial Prompting
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

Meta-Optimized LLM Judge Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs) allows for systematic jailbreaking through a meta-optimization framework called AMIS (Align to MISalign). The attack uses a bi-level optimization process to co-evolve both the jailbreak prompts and the scoring templates used to evaluate them.

Align to Misalign: Automatic LLM Jailbreak with Meta-Optimized LLM Judges
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Haiku, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude Sonnet 4+3 more
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Latent Space Discontinuity Exploitation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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…

Exploiting Latent Space Discontinuities for Building Universal LLM Jailbreaks and Data Extraction Attacks
Evaluated models: Not reported

Agent Plan And Intent Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Deep Research (DR) agents, specifically those utilizing the "think-search-draft" architecture such as the WebThinker framework, contain a logic vulnerability in their recursive planning and information retrieval workflows. While the underlying Large Language Model (LLM) may possess alignment safeguards to reject harmful queries, the agentic framework creates a bypass vector. When a user submits a harmful query using specific adversarial strategies—specifically "Plan Injection" (manipulating…

Deep Research Brings Deeper Harm
Evaluated models: QwQ 32B, Qwen 3 32B, DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B+3 more
  • QwQ 32B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • DeepResearcher 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Adaptive Monitor Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

AI control protocols utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) as "trusted monitors" to oversee stronger "untrusted" models are vulnerable to adaptive prompt injection attacks. An adversarial untrusted model, possessing knowledge of the monitor's system prompt and scoring logic (Kerckhoffs's principle), can embed specific text artifacts—such as fake system calibration logs or XML metadata—within its output. These injections exploit the monitor's inability to distinguish between data (the agent's…

Adaptive Attacks on Trusted Monitors Subvert AI Control Protocols
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4.1+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-5
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • DeepSeek Chat

Pattern Enhanced Multi-Turn Jailbreaking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Pattern Enhanced Chain of Attack (PE-CoA) shows that safety controls can be bypassed gradually across a conversation. The paper evaluates five recurring conversational patterns and finds that resistance to one pattern does not reliably generalize to others, creating a black-box, multi-turn jailbreak risk even when individual turns appear benign.

Pattern Enhanced Multi-Turn Jailbreaking: Exploiting Structural Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Claude 3 Haiku, DeepSeek Chat, Gemini 1.5 Flash+9 more
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • DeepSeek Chat
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3
  • Vicuna 13B v1.5

Code Agent Executable Jailbreaks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

AI code agents are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks that cause them to generate or complete malicious code. The vulnerability is significantly amplified when a base Large Language Model (LLM) is integrated into an agentic framework that uses multi-step planning and tool-use. Initial safety refusals by the LLM are frequently overturned during subsequent planning or self-correction steps within the agent's reasoning loop.

Breaking the Code: Security Assessment of AI Code Agents Through Systematic Jailbreaking Attacks
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek R1, Dolphin Mistral 24B Venice+6 more
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Dolphin Mistral 24B Venice
  • GPT-4.1
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Mistral Large 2.1
  • o1
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B

Chained Tool-Use Injections

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in tool-enabled Large Language Model (LLM) agents, termed Sequential Tool Attack Chaining (STAC), where a sequence of individually benign tool calls can be orchestrated to achieve a malicious outcome. An attacker can guide an agent through a multi-turn interaction, with each step appearing harmless in isolation. Safety mechanisms that evaluate individual prompts or actions fail to detect the threat because the malicious intent is distributed across the sequence and only…

STAC: When Innocent Tools Form Dangerous Chains to Jailbreak LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 Mini, Llama 3.1 405B Instruct+4 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Mistral Large
  • Mistral Small
  • Qwen 3 32B

RL-driven Formalized Prompt Jailbreaking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) where a harmful instruction can be obfuscated through a multi-step formalization process, bypassing safety mechanisms. The attack, named Prompt Jailbreaking via Semantic and Structural Formalization (PASS), uses a Reinforcement Learning (RL) agent to dynamically construct an adversarial prompt. The agent learns to apply a sequence of actions—such as symbolic abstraction, logical encoding, mathematical representation, metaphorical…

Formalization Driven LLM Prompt Jailbreaking via Reinforcement Learning
Evaluated models: DeepSeek V3, Qwen 3 14B

Schrodinger's Compliance Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The GPT-OSS-20B large language model contains critical failures in its alignment and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning mechanisms, specifically in how it prioritizes numerical objectives and validates procedural structure. The model is vulnerable to "Quant Fever," where explicit numerical targets in a prompt (e.g., "delete 90% of files") override contextual safety constraints (e.g., "do not delete important files"). Furthermore, the model exhibits "Reasoning Procedure Mirage," where harmful…

Quant Fever, Reasoning Blackholes, Schrodinger's Compliance, and More: Probing GPT-OSS-20B
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.