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

125 entries

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

Two-Frame Infilling Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A temporal trajectory infilling vulnerability in Text-to-Video (T2V) generative models allows attackers to bypass input and output safety filters to generate policy-violating content. The vulnerability is exploited using a fragmented prompting technique known as Two Frames Matter (TFM). An attacker submits a prompt that specifies only sparse boundary conditions (the start and end frames) using semantically suggestive but lexically benign alternatives, entirely omitting the intermediate action…

Two Frames Matter: A Temporal Attack for Text-to-Video Model Jailbreaking
Evaluated models: Not reported

MLLM Multi-Paradigm Collaborative

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-Modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to a highly transferable, black-box adversarial image attack known as the Multi-Paradigm Collaborative Attack (MPCAttack). Attackers can craft imperceptible visual perturbations by jointly aggregating and optimizing semantic feature representations extracted from surrogate models across three distinct learning paradigms: cross-modal alignment (e.g., CLIP), multi-modal understanding (e.g., InternVL3), and visual self-supervised learning…

Multi-Paradigm Collaborative Adversarial Attack Against Multi-Modal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, InternVL3 8B, LLaVA 1.5 7B+3 more
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • InternVL3 8B
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • GLM-4.1V 9B Thinking
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5

Inter-Turn Modality Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to alignment bypass via Inter-Turn Modality Switching (ITMS). By systematically rotating the input modality (e.g., alternating between text, audio, and image) across successive turns in a multi-turn adversarial conversation, an attacker can destabilize the model's safety defenses. The cross-modal transition mechanism exploits alignment gaps between differing input processing pipelines, accelerating the erosion of safety guardrails and…

MUSE: A Run-Centric Platform for Multimodal Unified Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 3 Flash Preview, GPT-4o+1 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 3 Flash Preview
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude Sonnet 4

Video-LLM Token Flood

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Video-based Large Language Models (Video-LLMs) are vulnerable to a universal Energy-Latency Attack (ELA) that triggers a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via spatially concentrated adversarial patches. Because video architectures rely on temporal subsampling and pooling which act as a low-pass filter against full-frame diffuse noise, an attacker can bypass this compression by anchoring cross-modal attention to a dense, localized visual anomaly. By injecting a fixed, content-agnostic patch into the…

VidDoS: Universal Denial-of-Service Attack on Video-based Large Language Models
Evaluated models: LLaVA-NeXT-Video 7B, Qwen3-VL 4B Instruct, Video-LLaVA 7B

Multi-Image Semantic Reconstruction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety alignments via Multi-Image Dispersion and Semantic Reconstruction (MIDAS). Attackers decompose malicious instructions into risk-bearing semantic subunits, fragment them, and distribute them across multiple benign-looking Game-style Visual Reasoning (GVR) puzzles (e.g., Letter Equations, Rank-and-Read, Odd-One-Out). A sanitized, persona-driven textual prompt with sequential placeholders is then used to…

MIDAS: Multi-Image Dispersion and Semantic Reconstruction for Jailbreaking MLLMs
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash Thinking, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4o+2 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash Thinking
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5 Chat
  • QVQ-Max

Safety Guidance Harm Collision

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in multi-category safety-guidance mechanisms (such as Safe Latent Diffusion [SLD] and SAFREE) for Text-to-Image (T2I) diffusion models allows attackers to bypass safety filters and generate restricted content via "Harmful Conflicts." Existing safety methods aggregate multiple harmful keyword categories (e.g., hate, violence, sexual) into a single unified safety direction in the latent or text space. Because distinct harmful categories possess incompatible safety directions…

When Safety Collides: Resolving Multi-Category Harmful Conflicts in Text-to-Image Diffusion via Adaptive Safety Guidance
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Stable Diffusion

Discrete Token Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Discrete image tokenizers are vulnerable to unsupervised embedding-space adversarial attacks. Attackers can apply $\ell_p$-bounded perturbations to an input image to maximize the $\ell_2$ distance of the pre-quantization continuous embeddings produced by the tokenizer's vision encoder. This forces the vector quantizer to cross discrete cell boundaries and assign incorrect codebook vectors, fundamentally altering the resulting token sequence. Because the attack targets the pre-quantization…

On the Adversarial Robustness of Discrete Image Tokenizers
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B

Multi-Modal Expansion Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to multi-turn, multi-modal jailbreak attacks where malicious intent is incrementally introduced and obfuscated through intertwined text and image prompts. Attackers can systematically bypass safety alignments by starting with self-optimized, benign-seeming conversation starters (horizontal expansion) and progressively stacking text and image attack augmentations across multiple conversation turns (vertical expansion). Furthermore, models fail…

FERRET: Framework for Expansion Reliant Red Teaming
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude 3 Haiku, Llama 4 Maverick

Visual Memory Multi-Turn Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to Visual Memory Injection (VMI), a stealthy targeted attack targeting multi-turn conversations. An attacker can embed an imperceptible adversarial perturbation ($L_\infty \le 8/255$) into a seemingly benign image. Because the visual input persists in the model's context throughout a multi-turn dialogue, the injected payload remains dormant. By utilizing "benign anchoring" and "context-cycling" during optimization, the attacker ensures the…

Visual Memory Injection Attacks for Multi-Turn Conversations
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, Qwen3-VL 8B Instruct, LLaVA-OneVision 1.5 8B Instruct+2 more
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen3-VL 8B Instruct
  • LLaVA-OneVision 1.5 8B Instruct
  • Qwen-SEA-LION v4 8B VL
  • QoQ-Med3-VL 8B

Vision-Text Adaptive Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety guardrails via a Multi-Turn Adaptive Prompting Attack (MAPA). Instead of triggering safety mechanisms with an immediate, explicit malicious request, the attacker iteratively injects malicious intent across multiple conversation turns by alternating between text and visual modalities. At each turn, the attack dynamically tests three prompt configurations (unconnected text only, unconnected text + malicious…

Multi-Turn Adaptive Prompting Attack on Large Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.2 11B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.2 11B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

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.