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

410 entries

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

Analyzing-Based LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to an "Analyzing-based Jailbreak" (ABJ) attack that exploits their analytical and reasoning capabilities. ABJ crafts prompts that instruct the LLM to analyze seemingly innocuous data (e.g., character traits, features, job descriptions) related to a malicious intent, leading the LLM to generate harmful content despite its safety training. This bypasses standard safety mechanisms designed to prevent direct requests for harmful information.

Figure it Out: Analyzing-based Jailbreak Attack on Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Claude-3-haiku-0307, GLM 4 9B Chat, GPT-3.5 Turbo+3 more
  • Claude-3-haiku-0307
  • GLM 4 9B Chat
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4-turbo-0409
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Qwen-2-7B-chat

Continuous Embedding Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in large language models (LLMs) allows attackers to generate harmful content by manipulating the continuous input embeddings without appending suffixes or using specific questions. The attack leverages gradient descent to optimize the input vector, causing the model to produce a predefined malicious output. Mitigation strategies, such as input clipping, help reduce the effectiveness but do not fully eliminate the threat.

Continuous Embedding Attacks via Clipped Inputs in Jailbreaking Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 7B

Embodied LLM Misaligned Actions

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Embodied Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to manipulation via voice-based interactions, leading to the execution of harmful physical actions. Attacks exploit three vulnerabilities: (1) cascading LLM jailbreaks resulting in malicious robotic commands; (2) misalignment between linguistic outputs (verbal refusal) and physical actions (command execution); and (3) conceptual deception, where seemingly benign instructions lead to harmful outcomes due to incomplete world knowledge within…

BadRobot: Manipulating Embodied LLMs in the Physical World
Evaluated models: BERT, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo+2 more
  • BERT
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B

Low-Perplexity LLM Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to adversarial attacks that utilize low-perplexity prompts to elicit unsafe content. These prompts, while statistically likely to occur in normal conversation, can trigger the generation of harmful or toxic outputs that evade standard safety filters. The vulnerability stems from the model's inability to reliably distinguish between benign and malicious intents within the statistical distribution of natural language.

ASTPrompter: Weakly Supervised Automated Language Model Red-Teaming to Identify Low-Perplexity Toxic Prompts
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 7B+1 more
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 7B
  • TinyLlama 1.1

Direct Parameter Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in large language models (LLMs) where a small subset of parameters can be directly edited to significantly alter the model's behavior, such as inducing or suppressing toxicity, jailbreaking susceptibility, or altering sentiment expression. This manipulation is achieved through training a linear classifier ("behavior probe") to identify parameters strongly correlated with the target behavior and then modifying those parameters, bypassing standard retraining methods.

Model Surgery: Modulating LLM's Behavior Via Simple Parameter Editing
Evaluated models: Code Llama 7B, Llama 2 7B, Llama 2 7B Chat+1 more
  • Code Llama 7B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Mistral 7B

Multilingual LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in several large language models (LLMs) where the safety alignment mechanisms are susceptible to bypass through "Multilingual Blending." This attack consists of crafting queries and eliciting responses using a mixture of multiple languages, significantly reducing the effectiveness of existing safety filters. The vulnerability stems from the models' ability to process and generate text in multiple languages, which, when combined in specific ways, can confuse the safety…

Multilingual blending: Llm safety alignment evaluation with language mixture
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o

Progressive Red Teaming Framework

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Automated Progressive Red Teaming (APRT) framework exploits vulnerabilities in large language models (LLMs) by iteratively generating adversarial prompts. APRT uses an Intention Expanding LLM to generate diverse initial attack samples, an Intention Hiding LLM to obfuscate malicious intent, and an Evil Maker to filter ineffective prompts. This process progressively identifies and exploits weaknesses, leading to the generation of unsafe yet seemingly helpful responses from the target LLM.

Automated progressive red teaming
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B Chat+5 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama Guard 3 8B
  • UltraLM 13B
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5

Soft Prompt Model Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A training-time attack against open-source LLMs that injects adversarial embeddings into the model's token embeddings without modifying model weights. This allows an attacker to introduce backdoors, jailbreaks, or prompt stealing capabilities by simply modifying specific token embeddings within the model file, maintaining model utility for non-triggered inputs. The attack leverages soft prompt tuning to optimize adversarial embeddings, which are then assigned to chosen trigger tokens.

Sos! soft prompt attack against open-source large language models
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 7B, Mistral 7B Instruct+2 more
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 7B
  • Mistral 7B Instruct
  • Vicuna 13B
  • Vicuna 7B

Space-Induced LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Appending a single whitespace character (space) or certain punctuation marks to the end of an LLM's input template can bypass safety mechanisms and cause the model to generate unsafe, biased, or factually incorrect outputs, even if the original prompt was benign. This vulnerability is due to the statistical properties of single-character tokens in the model's training data, causing unintended behavior in the model's token prediction.

Single character perturbations break llm alignment
Evaluated models: Not reported

Fast Safety Fine-tuning Removal

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Llama 3 8B and 70B, are vulnerable to a rapid removal of safety fine-tuning through parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods. Attackers with access to model weights can use techniques like QLoRA, ReLoRA, or Ortho to effectively circumvent safety mechanisms in a matter of minutes using readily available computational resources. This allows bypassing safety restrictions and eliciting unsafe outputs.

Badllama 3: removing safety finetuning from Llama 3 in minutes
Evaluated models: Llama 3 70B, Llama 3 8B

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.