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

32 entries

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

STEP Manufacturing Corruption

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The STEP-LLM framework, utilized for generating Computer-Aided Design (CAD) STEP files (ISO 10303) from natural language, exhibits a safety alignment vulnerability during the fine-tuning of base Large Language Models (specifically Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct and Qwen-2.5-3B). The training pipeline employs Depth-First Search (DFS) reserialization and Reinforcement Learning (RL) with Scaled Chamfer Distance rewards to optimize for geometric fidelity and syntactic validity of Boundary Representation…

STEP-LLM: Generating CAD STEP Models from Natural Language with Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.2 3B, Qwen 2.5 3B

Distractor Inverse Scaling

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Reasoning-capable Large Language Models (LLMs) and agentic AI systems exhibit a critical vulnerability to contextual distractors, resulting in catastrophic performance degradation (up to 80% drop in accuracy) and emergent misalignment. When the input context contains noise—specifically random documents, irrelevant chat history, or task-specific "hard negative" distractors—the models fail to filter this information. Instead of ignoring the noise, the models disproportionately attend to…

Lost in the Noise: How Reasoning Models Fail with Contextual Distractors
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek R1 0528+4 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • DeepSeek R1 0528
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Qwen 3 4B Thinking 2507
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B Thinking 2507

Strategic Abstention Failure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A "risk-invariance" vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) wherein the model's decision-making policy is functionally decoupled from its verbalized confidence and externally defined error penalties. Despite generating calibrated confidence estimates (internal epistemic uncertainty), affected models fail to adjust their abstention thresholds when presented with high-penalty incentives (e.g., negative utility for incorrect answers). This results in "utility collapse," where models…

Are LLM Decisions Faithful to Verbal Confidence?
Evaluated models: GPT-5 Mini, GPT-5 Nano, GPT-4.1 Mini+7 more
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5 Nano
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Gemma 3n E4B
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • DeepSeek V3.2 Thinking
  • Qwen 3 Next 80B-A3B Thinking

Point Cloud Adversarial Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Point-based 3D Vision-Language Models (VLMs), specifically PointLLM and GPT4Point, are vulnerable to white-box, gradient-based adversarial attacks. The vulnerability exists in the model's processing of 3D point cloud data, where an attacker can optimize imperceptible geometric perturbations ($\delta$) on the input point cloud ($x$) to manipulate the model's textual output. The paper identifies two specific attack vectors: 1. Vision Attack: Directly perturbs the high-dimensional visual token…

On the Adversarial Robustness of 3D Large Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Vicuna 7B

Multi-Agent Typo Vulnerability

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems employing ensemble sampling-and-voting strategies (specifically the "Agent Forest" framework) are vulnerable to adversarial input perturbations. While increasing the number of agents ($n \in \{1, \dots, 25\}$) improves accuracy on clean inputs, the system fails to mitigate the impact of synthetic punctuation noise and human-like typographical errors. Attackers can introduce surface-level perturbations—such as random punctuation insertion (10-50%…

More Agents Improve Math Problem Solving but Adversarial Robustness Gap Persists
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 3 4B+3 more
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Gemma 3 4B
  • Gemma 3 12B

Adversarial Self-Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a vulnerability to "adversarial conversational nudges," where the model abandons its internal factual knowledge to align with user-provided misinformation in closed domains (e.g., movies, books). Unlike standard hallucinations where a model lacks knowledge, this vulnerability occurs even when the model demonstrates—via separate self-consistency checks—that it correctly identifies the information as false. When a user creates a multi-turn context asserting…

What About the Scene With the Hitler Reference? HAUNT: A Framework to Probe LLMs' Self-consistency in Closed Domains Via Adversarial Nudge
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5, Claude Opus 4+4 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • Claude Opus 4
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • DeepSeek Reasoner
  • Grok 4

Underestimated LLM Security Flaws

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Mamba-2 and hybrid Transformer-Mamba-2 distilled Large Language Model (LLM) architectures exhibit a distinct architectural susceptibility to Latent Injection and ANSI Escape sequence prompt injection attacks. Comparative analysis reveals that models incorporating Mamba state-space components (specifically distilled variants like Llamba-3B and base Mamba models) fail to maintain adversarial robustness levels comparable to pure Transformer baselines (such as Llama-3.2) when subjected to indirect…

Towards reliable and practical LLM security evaluations via Bayesian modelling
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 3B, Falcon 7B

Multi-Agent Mole Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM)-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) that allows a malicious agent to covertly disrupt collaborative decision-making processes without triggering standard safety filters or anomaly detection. This "intention-hiding" attack occurs when an agent adopts a persona that appears linguistically fluent and role-consistent but strategically steers the group toward incorrect outcomes or resource exhaustion. The attacker leverages specific semantic…

Who's the Mole? Modeling and Detecting Intention-Hiding Malicious Agents in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

Agent API Goal Divergence

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents capable of invoking external APIs are vulnerable to intent integrity violations. When an agent receives natural language instructions that are ambiguous, underspecified, or contain values not supported by the underlying API schema, the agent frequently fails to preserve user intent. Instead of rejecting the request or asking for clarification, the model may hallucinate parameter values, map unsupported requests to unsafe defaults, or execute actions on…

TAI3: Testing Agent Integrity in Interpreting User Intent
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 3 30B-A3B+5 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • o3-mini

JailFlip Implicit Harm

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the safety alignment mechanisms of Large Language Models (LLMs) (including GPT-4, Claude 3, Gemini, and Qwen families) leading to "Implicit Harm." Unlike traditional jailbreaks that use overtly harmful queries, this vulnerability allows remote attackers to coerce the model into providing factually incorrect, plausible, and dangerous responses to benign-looking inputs. By employing "JailFlip" techniques—specifically constructed affirmative-type or denial-type queries…

Beyond Jailbreaks: Revealing Stealthier and Broader LLM Security Risks Stemming from Alignment Failures
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 Mini, GPT-4o+3 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Qwen Plus
  • Qwen Turbo

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.