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

736 entries

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

Persuasive Jailbreak Fingerprint

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreak attacks that use persuasive techniques grounded in social psychology to bypass safety alignments. Malicious instructions can be reframed using one of Cialdini's seven principles of persuasion (Authority, Reciprocity, Commitment, Social Proof, Liking, Scarcity, and Unity). These rephrased prompts, which remain human-readable and can be generated automatically, manipulate the LLM into complying with harmful requests it would otherwise…

Uncovering the Persuasive Fingerprint of LLMs in Jailbreaking Attacks
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1, GPT-2, Phi-4+1 more
  • DeepSeek R1
  • GPT-2
  • Phi-4
  • WizardLM Uncensored

LLM Data Instruction Override

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) integrated agents and applications are vulnerable to Prompt Injection attacks where untrusted data (e.g., retrieved documents, tool outputs, website content) overrides system instructions. Because LLMs typically process instructions and data within a single context window without strict separation, an attacker can embed imperative commands within the data channel. This vulnerability extends beyond simple overriding instructions; it includes sophisticated techniques…

Defending against prompt injection with datafilter
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Adaptive Traversal Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) including GPT-4o, LLaMA-3, and Mistral-7B are vulnerable to an adaptive multi-turn jailbreak attack known as HarmNet. This vulnerability exploits the model's inability to detect malicious intent when it is distributed across a hierarchical semantic network (ThoughtNet) rather than a single prompt. The attack methodology involves three phases: (1) constructing a semantic network of candidate topics and contextual sentences using embedding similarity to obscure the…

A Framework for Adaptive Multi-Turn Jailbreak Attacks on Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet+3 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Gemma 2 9B

PolyJailbreak Cross-Modal Safety Asymmetry

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper describes a reproducible black-box evaluation and attack framework, PolyJailbreak, for multimodal LLMs. It reports that uneven text-versus-vision safety alignment allows jointly optimized text and image inputs to bypass refusal behavior without model internals. The authors attribute this to visual alignment weakening textual refusal representations and to cross-modal fusion making harmful intent harder to separate from benign intent. These are paper-reported findings, not…

Multimodal Safety Is Asymmetric: Cross-Modal Exploits Unlock Black-Box MLLMs Jailbreaks
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, LLaVA 1.6 7B, Qwen-2.5-VL (7B)+5 more
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • LLaVA 1.6 7B
  • Qwen-2.5-VL (7B)
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Black-Box Confidence Exploit

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the self-reflection and introspection capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-LLMs that allows attackers to perform black-box adversarial optimization using only textual model responses. This technique, termed "Asking for Directions" (AfD), bypasses the need for access to gradients, logits, or continuous confidence scores. The attacker employs a hill-climbing optimization strategy where they present the target model with two candidate inputs (an…

Black-box Optimization of LLM Outputs by Asking for Directions
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct+8 more
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision
  • Llama 3.2 90B Vision
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Leaked Bits Collapse Attack Queries

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically variants of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, OLMo-2, and Llama-4, are vulnerable to accelerated adaptive adversarial attacks due to excessive information leakage in observable output signals. When these models expose "thinking processes" (Chain-of-Thought traces) or token-level log-probabilities (logits) to the end user, they leak significant mutual information $I(Z;T)$ regarding the model's safety state or hidden instructions. This leakage allows adaptive attack…

Bits Leaked per Query: Information-Theoretic Bounds on Adversarial Attacks against LLMs
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1, GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18, Llama 4 Maverick 17B+4 more
  • DeepSeek R1
  • GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18
  • Llama 4 Maverick 17B
  • Llama 4 Scout 17B
  • OLMo 2 7B-1124
  • OLMo 2 13B-1124
  • OLMo 2 32B-0325

Schema Exploitation Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Models where their strong adherence to processing structured data schemas can be exploited to bypass safety mechanisms. The attack, named BreakFun, uses a multi-component prompt that combines an innocent framing, a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) instruction, and a core "Trojan Schema." This schema is an adversarially designed data structure (e.g., a Python class definition) that embeds a harmful user request. By instructing the model to simulate the…

BreakFun: Jailbreaking LLMs via Schema Exploitation
Evaluated models: Claude 3 Haiku, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, DeepSeek R1+11 more
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • DeepSeek R1
  • ERNIE 4.5
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemma 3 12B
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Kimi K2
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 Max
  • Zephyr 7B

Agent Harassment Escalation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents powered by LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct and Gemini-2.0-flash are vulnerable to multi-turn adversarial exploitation that bypasses safety alignment through toxic memory injection, planning scaffolds (Chain-of-Thought/ReAct), and jailbreak fine-tuning. Unlike single-turn jailbreaks, this vulnerability exploits the agentic nature of the system—specifically memory retention and reasoning capabilities—to sustain and escalate harassment over prolonged interactions. When…

Echoes of Human Malice in Agents: Benchmarking LLMs for Multi-Turn Online Harassment Attacks
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Gemini 2.0 Flash 001

AI Browser Indirect Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Agentic AI browsers and LLM-powered browser extensions are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection via the processing of untrusted web content. The vulnerability arises when the AI agent ingests the Document Object Model (DOM), including hidden elements, HTML comments, metadata, and accessibility labels, into its context window to perform tasks such as page summarization or autonomous navigation. Because the LLM cannot distinguish between system instructions and untrusted external data, an…

In-browser llm-guided fuzzing for real-time prompt injection testing in agentic AI browsers
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Llama 3.1 70B, Llama 3.3 70B

Graph-LLM Semantic Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Graph-LLMs (Graph Neural Networks integrated with Large Language Models) utilized for representation learning on Text-Attributed Graphs (TAGs) are vulnerable to the Interpretable Multi-Dimensional Graph Attack (IMDGA). This vulnerability exists due to the non-decoupled nature of text encoding and graph message passing mechanisms. A black-box attacker can manipulate node classification predictions by executing a three-stage attack: (1) utilizing a word-level Topological SHAP module to identify…

Unveiling the Vulnerability of Graph-LLMs: An Interpretable Multi-Dimensional Adversarial Attack on TAGs
Evaluated models: Not reported

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.