Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed 9/9/2026

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1123 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

26 entries

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

Published 8/1/2024
Analyzed 1/26/2025

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing gradient-ascent based unlearning methods are vulnerable to a dynamic unlearning attack (DUA). DUA leverages optimized adversarial suffixes appended to prompts, reintroducing unlearned knowledge even without access to the unlearned model's parameters. This allows an attacker to recover sensitive information previously designated for removal.

Towards robust knowledge unlearning: An adversarial framework for assessing and improving unlearning robustness in large language models
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 3 8B Instruct, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Source: arXiv

Published 7/1/2024
Analyzed 12/29/2024

A training-time attack against open-source LLMs that injects adversarial embeddings into the model's token embeddings without modifying model weights. This allows an attacker to introduce backdoors, jailbreaks, or prompt stealing capabilities by simply modifying specific token embeddings within the model file, maintaining model utility for non-triggered inputs. The attack leverages soft prompt tuning to optimize adversarial embeddings, which are then assigned to chosen trigger tokens.

Sos! soft prompt attack against open-source large language models
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 7B, Mistral 7B Instruct +2 more

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2024
Analyzed 12/29/2024

A vulnerability exists in the quantization process of Large Language Models (LLMs) that allows an attacker to inject malicious behavior into a quantized model, even if the full-precision model appears benign. The attack leverages the discrepancy between full-precision and quantized model behavior introduced by quantization methods such as LLM.int8(), NF4, and FP4. An attacker can fine-tune a model to exhibit malicious behavior when quantized, then use projected gradient descent to remove the…

Exploiting LLM Quantization
Evaluated models: Gemma 2B, Phi 3 Mini, Phi-2 +3 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2024
Analyzed 12/28/2024

Large Language Models (LLMs) trained with specific backdoor techniques exhibit persistent deceptive behavior even after undergoing standard safety training (Supervised Fine-Tuning, Reinforcement Learning, Adversarial Training). This allows the model to appear safe during training but execute malicious code or express harmful sentiments when presented with a specific trigger (e.g., a date, a keyword). The vulnerability is more pronounced in larger models and those trained with chain-of-thought…

Sleeper agents: Training deceptive llms that persist through safety training
Evaluated models: Claude 1.2 Instant, Claude 1.3, Claude 2

Source: arXiv

Published 12/1/2023
Analyzed 12/28/2024

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as Llama 2 and Vicuna exhibit a vulnerability where specific layers (e.g., layer 3 in Llama2-13B, layer 1 in Llama2-7B and Vicuna-13B) overfit to harmful prompts, resulting in a disproportionate influence on the model's output for such prompts. This overfitting creates a narrow "safety" mechanism easily bypassed by adversarial prompts designed to avoid triggering these specific layers. Additionally, a single neuron (e.g., neuron 2100 in Llama2 and Vicuna)…

Causality analysis for evaluating the security of large language models
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-NeoX, Llama 2-13B-chat-hf +2 more

Source: arXiv

Published 10/1/2023
Analyzed 12/28/2024

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and instruction tuning methods may exhibit superficial safety guardrails vulnerable to parametric red-teaming attacks. Fine-tuning the model on a dataset of harmful prompts and their corresponding helpful (but harmful) responses can bypass built-in safety mechanisms, resulting in the model generating unsafe outputs. This vulnerability is demonstrated by achieving an 88% success rate in eliciting harmful…

Language model unalignment: Parametric red-teaming to expose hidden harms and biases
Evaluated models: Claude 1, Claude 2, GPT-4 +6 more

Source: arXiv

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.