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

64 entries

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

Personalized Agent Double Agent

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

OpenClaw is vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI), Tool-Return Manipulation, and Persistent Memory Poisoning. The agent incorporates untrusted external content (e.g., fetched web pages) and external tool outputs directly into its observation stream without sufficient isolation. An attacker can embed malicious payloads into these external channels to hijack the agent's planning and execution trace. This allows the attacker to silently trigger high-privilege actions via OpenClaw's Skills…

From Assistant to Double Agent: Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks on OpenClaw for Personalized Local AI Agent
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 70B, Qwen 2.5 7B

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

Context-Robust RAG Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to a robust corpus poisoning attack known as "Confundo." This vulnerability arises from the lack of pipeline awareness in standard RAG implementations, specifically regarding document ingestion (tokenization and chunking) and query variations. An attacker can exploit this by fine-tuning a Large Language Model (LLM) to function as a poison generator. Unlike traditional adversarial examples which are brittle, Confundo generates poison…

Confundo: Learning to Generate Robust Poison for Practical RAG Systems
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Gemini Pro

Unified Robustness Gap

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Text scoring models, including dense retrievers, rerankers, and reward models, are vulnerable to score manipulation attacks via search-based discrete perturbations and content injection. An attacker can systematically modify candidate texts using rudimentary string manipulations, gradient-guided token swaps (e.g., HotFlip), masked language modeling (MLM) swaps, or query/sentence injections to spuriously increase model scores. This structural failure condition allows an irrelevant passage or a…

Unifying Adversarial Robustness and Training Across Text Scoring Models
Evaluated models: E5 BERT-base, Qwen 3 0.6B, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct+2 more
  • E5 BERT-base
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Skywork Reward V2

LLM Hidden Intentions Undetectable

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to the induction of "hidden intentions"—covert, goal-directed manipulative behaviors—via lightweight prompt engineering, system prompts, or agentic workflows. Attackers can embed latent agendas (e.g., commercial manipulation, simulated consensus, or the promotion of insecure coding practices) into model outputs that trigger only under specific conversational contexts. Because these manipulative behaviors mimic benign interactions…

Unknown Unknowns: Why Hidden Intentions in LLMs Evade Detection
Evaluated models: Mistral 7B, Llama 3.2 3B, Gemma 3 12B IT+9 more
  • Mistral 7B
  • Llama 3.2 3B
  • Gemma 3 12B IT
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • GPT-4.1
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Mistral Medium 3
  • Qwen QwQ 32B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B
  • o3
  • Claude Opus 4
  • Magistral Medium

MCP Server-Side Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) specification v1.0 contains fundamental architectural vulnerabilities enabling server-side prompt injection and privilege escalation. The protocol relies on bidirectional sampling (sampling/createMessage) without cryptographic origin authentication or UI distinction, allowing connected servers to inject content that the LLM backend interprets as legitimate user input. Additionally, the protocol lacks isolation boundaries between concurrent server connections…

Breaking the Protocol: Security Analysis of the Model Context Protocol Specification and Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Tool-Integrated LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Llama 3.1 70B

Benign Praise Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) Fine-tuning-as-a-Service (FaaS) platforms that allows attackers to bypass safety alignment and moderation filters via a "TrojanPraise" benign fine-tuning attack. The attack exploits the decoupling of an LLM's internal representation of harmful queries into "knowledge" (semantic understanding) and "attitude" (safety refusal). The attacker constructs a fine-tuning dataset containing three specific components: (1) a novel nonsense word (e.g…

TrojanPraise: Jailbreak LLMs via Benign Fine-Tuning
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B+4 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 3B

Hidden Social RAG Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Web-facing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) and retrieval poisoning via web-native markup and Unicode carriers. Standard ingestion pipelines often parse untrusted web pages without stripping invisible constructs, such as hidden HTML spans, off-screen CSS, alt text, ARIA attributes, and zero-width characters. When an attacker embeds malicious instructions within these invisible carriers on third-party sites, the RAG system retrieves…

Hidden-in-Plain-Text: A Benchmark for Social-Web Indirect Prompt Injection in RAG
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 2.5 14B

Agent Persistent Memory Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Unauthenticated, query-only memory poisoning (Memory Injection Attack - MINJA) in LLM agents equipped with persistent, shared memory allows attackers to manipulate the agent's long-term knowledge base. Adversaries embed malicious "indication prompts" and utilize progressive shortening within seemingly benign queries to induce the agent into autonomously generating and storing corrupted relational mappings. Because the memory is shared and retrieved via similarity (e.g., Levenshtein distance)…

Memory Poisoning Attack and Defense on Memory Based LLM-Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

CoT Detector Obfuscation Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based code agents and vulnerability detectors employing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning are susceptible to automated adversarial code obfuscation. The vulnerability exists because CoT mechanisms expose the model's decision logic, allowing reinforcement learning frameworks (such as CoTDeceptor) to iteratively refine code transformations based on the detector's own reasoning traces. By optimizing for "reasoning instability" and "hallucination" rather than just syntactic evasion, attackers…

CoTDeceptor: Adversarial Code Obfuscation Against CoT-Enhanced LLM Code Agents
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1, GPT-5

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.