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

609 entries

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

Zero-Tax Fine-Tune Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An adversarial fine-tuning vulnerability exists in LLMs protected by text-based safety classifiers (such as Anthropic's Constitutional Classifiers). By utilizing a two-stage curriculum learning combined with hybrid RL+SFT (GRPO), an attacker can fine-tune a model to communicate using a minimal substitution cipher (replacing only 7-8 high-frequency characters) disguised within benign technical templates (e.g., forensic logs with 0x prefixes). This "Trojan-Speak" methodology bypasses text-level…

Trojan-Speak: Bypassing Constitutional Classifiers with No Jailbreak Tax via Adversarial Finetuning
Evaluated models: Claude Haiku 4.5, Qwen 3 4B, Qwen 3 8B+2 more
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Qwen 3 32B

Agentic Robot Instruction Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are vulnerable to targeted, low-budget textual perturbations in their natural-language instruction inputs, which can maliciously alter sequential decision-making and downstream physical robotic behavior. Because VLA policies tightly couple language, perception, and control, bounded edits—such as character-level typos, token attribute swaps, or prompt-level uncertainty clauses—propagate through the model's execution trajectory. This allows a black-box…

SABER: A Stealthy Agentic Black-Box Attack Framework for Vision-Language-Action Models
Evaluated models: Not reported

System Prompt Signal Inversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based autonomous email security agents configured with signal-based system prompts are vulnerable to a "signal inversion" attack via infrastructure phishing. When a system prompt instructs an LLM to prioritize a specific heuristic—such as sender-URL domain consistency—attackers can bypass the security filter entirely by registering a single, inexpensive domain and using it for both the sender email address and the malicious payload host. Because the LLM faithfully executes the prioritized…

The System Prompt Is the Attack Surface: How LLM Agent Configuration Shapes Security and Creates Exploitable Vulnerabilities
Evaluated models: Gemini 3 Flash Preview, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-4o Mini+8 more
  • Gemini 3 Flash Preview
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-5.2
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Llama 4 Scout
  • Mistral Small 3.2 24B
  • Grok 4.1 Fast
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B

Token Sensitivity Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to highly query-efficient black-box jailbreak attacks due to the structural properties of refusal behaviors: skewed token contribution and cross-model consistency. Refusal mechanisms within LLMs are typically triggered by a sparse subset of sensitive tokens rather than the entire prompt, and these refusal representations (specifically the primary left singular vector of the perturbed representation matrix at intermediate layers) are…

Not All Tokens Are Created Equal: Query-Efficient Jailbreak Fuzzing for LLMs
Evaluated models: Gemma 7B Instruct, Gemma 2 9B IT, Llama 3 8B Instruct+6 more
  • Gemma 7B Instruct
  • Gemma 2 9B IT
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet

Agent Tool Execution Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A multi-step tool execution vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing the Model Context Protocol (MCP) or similar tool-calling frameworks. Safety guardrails in aligned LLMs typically evaluate static, single-turn text generation. Attackers can bypass these text-centric guardrails by supplying adversarial prompts that force the agent into a complex planning sequence. The agent is manipulated into executing a trajectory of seemingly benign individual tool invocations…

T-MAP: Red-Teaming LLM Agents with Trajectory-aware Evolutionary Search
Evaluated models: GPT-5, Gemini Pro, DeepSeek V3

Long-Tail Cryptographic Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to automated long-tail distribution attacks that exploit their instruction-following and code-execution capabilities to bypass safety alignments. Attackers can obfuscate malicious queries using a semantic-algorithmic representation, embedding the query within reversible encryption-decryption logic (e.g., sequence re-grouping, conditional branching, or index-dependent operations). By providing the model with the encrypted query and the corresponding…

Evolving Jailbreaks: Automated Multi-Objective Long-Tail Attacks on Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Llama 2 7B, Llama 3.1 8B

Cross-Language Safety Drift

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Leading Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit significant cross-lingual safety drift, allowing users to bypass safety guardrails by translating harmful prompts into low-resource Indic languages. While models effectively block unsafe prompts concerning caste, religion, gender, and politics in high-resource languages like English and Hindi, their safety alignment severely degrades in low-resource scripts such as Odia, Telugu, Kannada, and Punjabi. Evaluated models demonstrate a cross-language…

IndicSafe: A Benchmark for Evaluating Multilingual LLM Safety in South Asia
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Claude Sonnet 4, Grok 3+6 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Grok 3
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 405B
  • Qwen 1.5 7B Chat
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.2
  • Command R
  • Command A

Stage-Sequential Agent Escalation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Agentic Large Language Model (LLM) systems utilizing persistent memory, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, and external tool connectors are vulnerable to Logic-layer Prompt Control Injection (LPCI). An attacker can inject obfuscated (e.g., encoded, structurally nested, or semantically reframed) payloads into external memory stores or RAG documents. These payloads bypass conventional inference-time plaintext content filters, persist across session boundaries, and remain dormant…

LAAF: Logic-layer Automated Attack Framework A Systematic Red-Teaming Methodology for LPCI Vulnerabilities in Agentic Large Language Model Systems
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Claude 3 Haiku, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct+2 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Mixtral 8x7B Instruct

VLM Image-Shift Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The integration of the visual modality in Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) introduces a vulnerability where appending an image to a harmful text prompt induces a "jailbreak-related representation shift" in the model's internal high-dimensional space. This shift forcibly steers the model's last-token hidden state away from a designated refusal state and into a distinct jailbreak state. The vulnerability occurs because the visual modality overrides the safety alignment of the underlying…

Understanding and Defending VLM Jailbreaks via Jailbreak-Related Representation Shift
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, ShareGPT4V 7B, InternVL-Chat 19B

Jailbreak Personalization Override

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in multi-step, tool-using Large Language Model (LLM) agents allows attackers to bypass safety guardrails by manipulating user context variables, such as personalization profiles or persistent memory. The safety policies of frontier LLMs are highly context-dependent; inserting innocuous user bios (e.g., demographic or health disclosures) fundamentally alters the agent's action policy. When combined with lightweight adversarial jailbreaks, specific personalization contexts…

Differential Harm Propensity in Personalized LLM Agents: The Curious Case of Mental Health Disclosure
Evaluated models: DeepSeek V3.2, GPT-5 Mini, GPT-5.2+5 more
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5.2
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • Gemini 3 Pro
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Claude Opus 4.5
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5

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.