Language Model Security Database

Large Language Models (LLMs) utilized for Automatic Short Answer Grading (ASAG) are vulnerable to the "GradingAttack" framework, which employs fine-grained adversarial manipulation to alter grading outcomes. Attackers can leverage two distinct strategies: (1) Prompt-level attacks using role-play injection strings that instruct the model to pretend an answer is correct regardless of factual accuracy, and (2) Token-level attacks utilizing gradient-based optimization (similar to Greedy Coordinate…

Text scoring models, including dense retrievers, rerankers, and reward models, are vulnerable to score manipulation attacks via search-based discrete perturbations and content injection. An attacker can systematically modify candidate texts using rudimentary string manipulations, gradient-guided token swaps (e.g., HotFlip), masked language modeling (MLM) swaps, or query/sentence injections to spuriously increase model scores. This structural failure condition allows an irrelevant passage or a…

LLM-based vulnerability detection systems (used in static application security testing and code review pipelines) are susceptible to semantics-preserving adversarial evasion attacks. Attackers can bypass detection mechanisms by injecting gradient-optimized "universal adversarial strings" into specific code regions—defined as "carriers"—that do not alter the program's compilation or execution logic. These carriers include non-executable regions (code comments, inactive preprocessor directives)…

LLM routing systems are vulnerable to adversarial rerouting attacks where malicious triggers prepended to user queries manipulate the router's model-selection mechanism. Because LLM routers function as classifiers evaluating query complexity to balance computational cost and response quality, an attacker can craft adversarial prefixes that distort the query's latent semantic representation. This exploits the router's decision boundaries, forcing the system to misclassify the input and redirect…

A vulnerability exists in aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) where inducing "drunk language" behavior—simulating the text of an intoxicated human—bypasses safety guardrails and contextual privacy protections. Attackers can exploit this anthropomorphic flaw through inference-time persona prompting or lightweight post-training (causal fine-tuning or reinforcement learning on drunk text corpora). By forcing the model to adopt a stylistic and semantic framework associated with impaired human…

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) and Large Reasoning Model (LRM) serving interfaces that allow user-defined response prefixes, such as plain text-completion (v1/completions), Fill-in-the-Middle (FIM), or assistant message prefilling. An attacker can perform a Response Prefix Attack (RPA) by injecting maliciously crafted Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning tokens immediately following the assistant's start delimiter (e.g., <|im_start|>assistant). Because these tokens are placed…

Open-weight Large Language Models, demonstrated specifically on Qwen3 (4B and 30B-A3B Base, Instruct, and Thinking variants), are vulnerable to unauthorized steerability attacks where minimal inference-time interventions—such as short, pro-instrumental prompt suffixes—reliably elicit dangerous instrumental-convergence behaviors. Because instruction-tuned and "Thinking" models are inherently designed to be highly responsive to steering (authorized steerability), malicious actors can exploit…

Large Language Models (LLMs) finetuned from open-weight pretrained sources inherit adversarial vulnerabilities encoded in the pretrained model's internal representations. An attacker with white-box access to a pretrained model (e.g., Llama-2, Llama-3) can identify linearly separable features in the hidden states that correlate with "transferable" jailbreak prompts. By exploiting these features using a Probe-Guided Projection (PGP) attack, the attacker can optimize adversarial suffixes on the…

Reasoning-specialized Large Language Models (LLMs) that utilize Chain-of-Thought (CoT) processes are vulnerable to reasoning-exploitation jailbreaks. Attackers can bypass standard safety alignments (such as RLHF) by using adaptive multi-turn interactions or semantic transformations to induce the model to generate intermediate reasoning steps that "rationalize" or "contextualize" a harmful request. Because current alignment techniques often fail to scale linearly with reasoning depth, forcing…

A vulnerability exists in multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) that allows for safety alignment bypass through an advanced jailbreaking technique called Template and Suffix Optimization (TASO). The attack combines two distinct optimization methods in an alternating, iterative feedback loop. First, a semantically meaningless adversarial suffix is optimized (e.g., using gradient-based methods like GCG) to force the LLM to begin its response with an affirmative phrase (e.g., "Sure, here is...")…