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.

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

Sophisticated Deception Induces Misbelief

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a vulnerability to "hard-to-falsify" deceptive evidence injection, termed the "Facade of Truth." This vulnerability allows an attacker to override an LLM’s parametric knowledge (internal factual beliefs) by injecting sophisticated, iteratively refined fabricated evidence into the context window. Unlike overt misinformation which models typically reject, this attack utilizes a multi-agent adversarial framework (MisBelief) to generate evidence that mimics…

The Facade of Truth: Uncovering and Mitigating LLM Susceptibility to Deceptive Evidence
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-5, Llama 3 8B+1 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B

Tool Stream Injection Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing external tool execution frameworks are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) via the "Tool Stream." Unlike traditional data-stream injections (e.g., malicious emails), this vulnerability exploits the agent's interpretation of functional tool definitions (docstrings, signatures) and runtime feedback (error messages, return values) as binding operational constraints. Adversaries functioning as compromised or malicious tool providers can embed…

VIGIL: Defending LLM Agents Against Tool Stream Injection via Verify-Before-Commit
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, Qwen 3 Max

RAG Poisoning Mitigation Downgrade

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A data poisoning vulnerability exists in the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) component of Large Language Model (LLM)-based Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS). The vulnerability allows an attacker to inject adversarially perturbed text into the system's knowledge base. By employing a transfer-learning attack using a surrogate model (e.g., BERT) and word-level perturbation algorithms (e.g., TextFooler), an attacker can generate semantic-preserving descriptions that alter the vector…

RAG-targeted Adversarial Attack on LLM-based Threat Detection and Mitigation Framework
Evaluated models: Not reported

Semantic Intention Obfuscation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The KG-DF (Knowledge Graph Defense Framework) contains a logic vulnerability in its Semantic Parsing Module, specifically within the keyword extraction phase defined as $K_{core} = \text{LLM}(P_{prompt})$. The framework relies on a Large Language Model (e.g., GPT-3.5-turbo) to distill user input into keywords ($K_{core}$), which are then embedded to retrieve security warning triples ($T_{match}$) from a Knowledge Graph.

KG-DF: A Black-box Defense Framework against Jailbreak Attacks Based on Knowledge Graphs
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama 2 7B+1 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Vicuna 7B

LLM Factual MitM Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, LLaMA-2-13B, Mistral-7B, and Phi-3.5-mini, are vulnerable to Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) adversarial prompt injections that undermine factual recall. Termed the "$\chi$mera" (Chimera) attack framework, this vulnerability exists when an attacker intercepts and modifies user queries (e.g., via malicious browser extensions, compromised frontends, or proxy middleware) before they reach the victim model. By appending adversarial…

Injecting Falsehoods: Adversarial Man-in-the-Middle Attacks Undermining Factual Recall in LLMs
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 2 13B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Phi-3

Adversarial RAG Context Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems in the health domain are vulnerable to corpus poisoning attacks where adversarial documents—specifically those generated via "Liar" (fabricated from scratch based on an incorrect stance) and "Few-Shot Adversarial Prompting" (FSAP)—are injected into the retrieval pool. When these adversarial documents are retrieved and presented as context, they successfully override the Large Language Model's (LLM) internal safety alignment and ground-truth…

Evaluating the Robustness of Retrieval-Augmented Generation to Adversarial Evidence in the Health Domain
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-5, Claude 3.5 Haiku+3 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-5
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 32B
  • Phi-4
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct

Black-Box RAG Rank Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems utilizing dense (e.g., BERT-based) or sparse (e.g., BM25) retrievers are vulnerable to black-box adversarial prompt injection attacks. By employing a gradient-free Differential Evolution (DE) optimization algorithm (referred to as DeRAG), an attacker can generate short adversarial suffixes (typically ≤ 5 tokens). When these suffixes are appended to a user query, they manipulate the retriever's ranking mechanism to promote a specific, malicious, or…

DeRAG: Black-box Adversarial Attacks on Multiple Retrieval-Augmented Generation Applications via Prompt Injection
Evaluated models: Not reported

Cross-Batch Interference

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed using "Batch Prompting" strategies—where multiple distinct user queries are concatenated and processed in a single inference pass to reduce computational costs—are vulnerable to Cross-Query Prompt Injection. When a batch contains a mixture of benign queries and a single malicious query, the instructions within the malicious query (e.g., "apply this rule to every answer") bleed over the context window. This causes the model to apply the adversary's…

Efficient but Vulnerable: Benchmarking and Defending LLM Batch Prompting Attack
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Claude 3.5 Sonnet+4 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • DeepSeek R1

LLM RAG Decoy Overthink

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A resource exhaustion and algorithmic complexity vulnerability exists in applications utilizing Reasoning Large Language Models (e.g., OpenAI o1, DeepSeek R1) that process untrusted external context (such as Retrieval-Augmented Generation systems). The vulnerability, dubbed "OverThink," allows an attacker to perform an indirect prompt injection by embedding "decoy" reasoning problems—specifically computation-intensive tasks like Sudoku puzzles or Markov Decision Processes (MDPs)—into the…

Overthink: Slowdown attacks on reasoning llms
Evaluated models: o1, o3, DeepSeek R1

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.