Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed 9/9/2026

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1123 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

468 entries

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

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 5/31/2025

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) that allows attackers to manipulate the model's output by modifying token log probabilities. Attackers can use a lightweight plug-in model (BiasNet) to subtly alter the probabilities, steering the LLM toward generating harmful content even when safety mechanisms are in place. This attack requires only access to the top-k token log probabilities returned by the LLM's API, without needing model weights or internal access.

JULI: Jailbreak Large Language Models by Self-Introspection
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 3 8B, Llama 3 8B Instruct +3 more

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 12/9/2025

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Llama-2-7B-Chat and Qwen2.5-Instruct (1.5B and 3B), contain a vulnerability in their post-training safety alignment mechanisms identified as "Refusal Direction Abliteration." The safety alignment in these models creates distinct, isolated neural pathways (a single latent direction in the residual stream) responsible for refusal behavior. An attacker can identify this specific direction by computing the difference in mean activations between harmful…

An Embarrassingly Simple Defense Against LLM Abliteration Attacks
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B Chat, Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 5/31/2025

The LARGO attack exploits a vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs) allowing attackers to bypass safety mechanisms through the generation of "stealthy" adversarial prompts. The attack leverages gradient optimization in the LLM's continuous latent space to craft seemingly innocuous natural language suffixes which, when appended to harmful prompts, elicit unsafe responses. The vulnerability stems from the LLM's inability to reliably distinguish between benign and maliciously crafted latent…

LARGO: Latent Adversarial Reflection through Gradient Optimization for Jailbreaking LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 13B Chat, Llama 2 7B Chat, Phi 3 Mini +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

Large Language Models (LLMs) utilizing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting are vulnerable to input perturbations that decouple intermediate reasoning from the final answer. An attacker can generate adversarial examples using gradient-based optimization (targeting specific loss functions that maximize reasoning divergence while minimizing answer loss) to induce "Right Answer, Wrong Reasoning" behaviors. This vulnerability manifests through two primary attack vectors: 1. Token-level perturbations…

Robust Answers, Fragile Logic: Probing the Decoupling Hypothesis in LLM Reasoning
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B, Zephyr 7B Beta +4 more

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 12/9/2025

Mobile LLM agents utilizing vision-based screen perception (OCR or Multimodal Large Language Models) are vulnerable to Visual Prompt Injection via malicious GUI overlays. An attacker holding the SYSTEM_ALERT_WINDOW permission can deploy non-focusable floating windows (using FLAG_NOT_FOCUSABLE) containing adversarial text or fabricated UI elements over legitimate applications. Because the agent captures the entire screen buffer to interpret the device state, it ingests the adversarial overlay…

From Assistants to Adversaries: Exploring the Security Risks of Mobile LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) that utilize a projection layer (adapter) to bridge a vision encoder and a Large Language Model (LLM) contain a vulnerability stemming from the "Modality Gap"—a distributional distance between image and text token embeddings. This gap allows the visual modality to bypass the safety alignment (RLHF/instruction tuning) of the backbone LLM. Attackers can trigger harmful, toxic, or illegal responses to queries that would be refused in text-only contexts by…

Bootstrapping LLM Robustness for VLM Safety via Reducing the Pretraining Modality Gap
Evaluated models: LLaVA 7B, Vicuna 7B

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 1/14/2026

Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs), utilized for interpreting the internal residual stream activations of Large Language Models (LLMs) into human-understandable concepts, are vulnerable to adversarial input perturbations. By employing gradient-based optimization techniques adapted for SAEs (specifically a generalized Greedy Coordinate Gradient), an attacker can craft inputs via suffix appending or token replacement that manipulate the SAE's latent feature activations. This vulnerability allows for the…

Interpretability Illusions with Sparse Autoencoders: Evaluating Robustness of Concept Representations
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Gemma 2 9B

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 12/8/2025

An adversarial audio perturbation vulnerability exists in open-source Speech Language Models (SLMs), specifically Qwen2-Audio-7B-Instruct and LLaMa-Omni. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to bypass safety alignment mechanisms and jailbreak the model by injecting imperceptible adversarial noise into audio prompts. By utilizing white-box access and Projected Gradient Descent (PGD) optimization, an attacker can manipulate the continuous speech signal to trigger harmful responses (e.g…

SPIRIT: Patching Speech Language Models against Jailbreak Attacks
Evaluated models: Qwen 2 7B

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 12/8/2025

A security vulnerability exists in the quantization process of Small Language Models (SLMs) intended for on-device deployment. When full-precision models are compressed using quantization techniques (reducing weights and activations to 4-bit or 8-bit precision), the safety alignment and refusal mechanisms inherent in the original models are degraded or bypassed. This "Quantization-induced Risk" allows the quantized versions of models to respond to harmful, unethical, or illegal queries…

LiteLMGuard: Seamless and Lightweight On-Device Prompt Filtering for Safeguarding Small Language Models against Quantization-induced Risks and …
Evaluated models: Phi-3

Source: arXiv

Published 5/1/2025
Analyzed 12/8/2025

Large Audio-Language Models (LAMs) are vulnerable to adversarial signal-level perturbations that allow for the bypass of safety guardrails (jailbreaking). While these models may possess robust text-based safety alignment, they fail to generalize this robustness to the audio modality. Attackers can utilize the Audio Perturbation Toolkit (APT) to apply transformations in the time domain (Energy Distribution Perturbation, Trimming, Fade In/Out), frequency domain (Pitch Shifting, Temporal…

Audio Jailbreak: An Open Comprehensive Benchmark for Jailbreaking Large Audio-Language Models
Evaluated models: SpeechGPT, SALMONN, DiVA +4 more

Source: arXiv

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.