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

Research findings

985 entries

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

Detector Telemetry Camouflage

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Single-pass hallucination detectors relying on internal telemetry (uncertainty, hidden-state geometry, and attention patterns) are vulnerable to white-box, model-side adversarial attacks. An attacker can employ the CORVUS (Camouflaging Open-weight Representations, Volumes, Uncertainty, and Structure) technique to fine-tune lightweight Low-Rank Adapters (LoRA) on the target LLM. This method optimizes a specific loss objective that camouflages detector-visible telemetry signals—specifically…

CORVUS: Red-Teaming Hallucination Detectors via Internal Signal Camouflage in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 14B+1 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Vicuna 7B

Drunk Language Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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…

In Vino Veritas and Vulnerabilities: Examining LLM Safety via Drunk Language Inducement
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4o+3 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B

Invisible Headline Trading Loss

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Improper input validation in Large Language Model (LLM) integrated Algorithmic Trading Systems (ATS) allows remote attackers to manipulate trading decisions via crafted "adversarial news" headlines. The vulnerability exists when ATS pipelines ingest financial news data via standard scraping libraries (e.g., Scrapy, BeautifulSoup, Cheerio) and pass raw HTML or non-normalized text directly to LLMs (such as FinBERT, FinGPT, or GPT-4) for entity recognition (stock-name association) and sentiment…

Adversarial News and Lost Profits: Manipulating Headlines in LLM-Driven Algorithmic Trading
Evaluated models: FinBERT, FinGPT, FinLLaMA+7 more
  • FinBERT
  • FinGPT
  • FinLLaMA
  • o3
  • o3 Pro
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4o Mini High
  • GPT-5
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro

MLLM Chart Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Code-generation Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to directed misuse for the generation of misleading data visualizations. This vulnerability, described as the "ChartAttack" framework, allows an attacker to prompt the model to manipulate chart annotation code (e.g., JSON specifications for Matplotlib or Vega-Lite) to apply specific "misleaders"—design choices that distort data interpretation without altering the underlying data values. By…

ChartAttack: Testing the Vulnerability of LLMs to Malicious Prompting in Chart Generation
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 14B, LLaVA 7B, Phi-3

Misleading Option Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed using Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) interfaces or choice-based selection structures are vulnerable to Option Injection. By appending a task-irrelevant candidate choice (e.g., Option E) containing a steering directive—specifically utilizing threat framing (penalty coercion) or bonus framing (reward inducement)—an attacker can hijack the model's decision-making process. The vulnerability stems from a flaw in attention allocation: the model's…

OI-Bench: An Option Injection Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Susceptibility to Directive Interference
Evaluated models: GPT-5, GPT-5 Mini, Claude Haiku 4.5+9 more
  • GPT-5
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Llama 4 Scout
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • Grok 4.1

Nugget Overfitting Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

AutoArgue, an LLM-based evaluation framework for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems, is susceptible to evaluation subversion attacks due to the public availability of its judging prompts and reference data structures. An adversarial RAG system (exemplified by the "Crucible" probe) can incorporate "insider knowledge" of the evaluation logic directly into its generation pipeline. By wrapping the generation process with the evaluator's specific prompts, the system can pre-filter…

Insider Knowledge: How Much Can RAG Systems Gain from Evaluation Secrets?
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.3 70B

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

Sockpuppet Prefix Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically open-weight instruction-tuned models (including Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen3-8B, and Gemma-7B) and certain closed-weight APIs allowing partial response pre-filling, are vulnerable to "Sockpuppetting" or Output Prefix Injection. This vulnerability exploits the model's autoregressive nature and self-consistency bias. By injecting a target acceptance sequence (e.g., "Sure, here is...") directly into the start of the assistant message block within the chat…

Sockpuppetting: Jailbreaking LLMs by Combining Prefilling with Optimization
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 3 8B, Gemma 7B

VLM In-the-Loop Adversary

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The VILTA (VLM-in-the-Loop Trajectory Adversary) framework is vulnerable to Prompt Injection and Data Poisoning via un-sanitized scene representation inputs. The system integrates a Vision-Language Model (Gemini-2.5-Flash) into a closed-loop reinforcement learning environment, feeding it Bird’s-Eye-View (BEV) imagery alongside text-based vehicle dynamics data (e.g., position, speed, and risk_category) to generate challenging driving trajectories. An attacker who can manipulate the input…

VILTA: A VLM-in-the-Loop Adversary for Enhancing Driving Policy Robustness
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash

Benign Praise Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) Fine-tuning-as-a-Service (FaaS) platforms that allows attackers to bypass safety alignment and moderation filters via a "TrojanPraise" benign fine-tuning attack. The attack exploits the decoupling of an LLM's internal representation of harmful queries into "knowledge" (semantic understanding) and "attitude" (safety refusal). The attacker constructs a fine-tuning dataset containing three specific components: (1) a novel nonsense word (e.g…

TrojanPraise: Jailbreak LLMs via Benign Fine-Tuning
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B+4 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 3B

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.