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

736 entries

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

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

Large Language Model (LLM) inference APIs that expose top-k logits or log-probabilities are vulnerable to model extraction and cloning. An attacker can execute a two-stage attack to replicate the proprietary model without access to weights, gradients, or training data. First, by submitting fewer than 10,000 random queries and aggregating the returned unrounded logits, the attacker recovers the model's output projection matrix using Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). Second, the attacker…

Clone What You Can't Steal: Black-Box LLM Replication via Logit Leakage and Distillation
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, Mistral 7B

Source: arXiv

Published 9/1/2025
Analyzed 9/30/2025

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a significantly lower safety threshold when prompted in low-resource languages, such as Singlish, Malay, and Tamil, compared to high-resource languages like English. This vulnerability allows for the generation of toxic, biased, and hateful content through simple prompts. The models are susceptible to "toxicity jailbreaks" where providing a few toxic examples in-context (few-shot prompting) causes a substantial increase in the generation of harmful outputs…

Toxicity Red-Teaming: Benchmarking LLM Safety in Singapore's Low-Resource Languages
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3 +3 more

Source: arXiv

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

The evaluated MetaGPT multi-agent systems are vulnerable to "Web Fraud Attacks" due to insufficient semantic and structural validation of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) by agentic models. A low-privilege compromised agent can exploit this vulnerability to induce other agents (including auditors and experts) into accepting, visiting, or processing malicious links. The vulnerability leverages the LLM's inability to distinguish between benign and malicious link structures when obfuscation…

Web fraud attacks against llm-driven multi-agent systems
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek Reasoner +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 9/1/2025
Analyzed 1/14/2026

Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems are vulnerable to compositional privacy leakage, a flaw where sensitive information is exposed through the aggregation of individually benign responses from distinct agents. In distributed architectures where data is siloed (e.g., distinct agents handling HR, Finance, and IT logs), individual agents lack a global view of the user’s accumulated knowledge or the sensitive attributes derivable from cross-agent data combinations. An attacker can…

The Sum Leaks More Than Its Parts: Compositional Privacy Risks and Mitigations in Multi-Agent Collaboration
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 32B, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-5

Source: arXiv

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

Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT-4o, LLaMA-3, and GPT-3.5-Turbo, are vulnerable to multimodal prompt injection attacks. These models fail to distinguish between system-level instructions and user-provided content within the context window. Attackers can exploit this by embedding malicious instructions in direct text, indirect sources (such as third-party webpages or PDFs), or visual inputs (images). Successful exploitation results in the model prioritizing the injected adversarial…

Multimodal Prompt Injection Attacks: Risks and Defenses for Modern LLMs
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 3 8B +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 9/1/2025
Analyzed 2/22/2026

Large Language Models (LLMs) employed as automated assistants or autonomous agents in academic peer review systems are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection via maliciously crafted PDF submissions. Attackers can embed adversarial instructions within the manuscript that are invisible to human reviewers (using techniques such as white-on-white text or manipulating TrueType font character mapping tables) but are parsed and executed by the LLM.

When your reviewer is an llm: Biases, divergence, and prompt injection risks in peer review
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5

Source: arXiv

Published 9/1/2025
Analyzed 12/8/2025

Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated with external retrieval mechanisms (e.g., Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), web search, or email processing) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection. This vulnerability occurs when an LLM consumes input from untrusted external sources—such as websites, code repositories, or incoming emails—that contain embedded adversarial prompts. Unlike direct injection, where the user attacks the model, here the "poisoned" data is retrieved by the system…

Breaking to Build: A Threat Model of Prompt-Based Attacks for Securing LLMs
Evaluated models: Not reported

Source: arXiv

Published 9/1/2025
Analyzed 10/13/2025

A vulnerability exists in aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) where a harmful instruction can be obfuscated through a multi-step formalization process, bypassing safety mechanisms. The attack, named Prompt Jailbreaking via Semantic and Structural Formalization (PASS), uses a Reinforcement Learning (RL) agent to dynamically construct an adversarial prompt. The agent learns to apply a sequence of actions—such as symbolic abstraction, logical encoding, mathematical representation, metaphorical…

Formalization Driven LLM Prompt Jailbreaking via Reinforcement Learning
Evaluated models: DeepSeek V3, Qwen 3 14B

Source: arXiv

Published 9/1/2025
Analyzed 10/13/2025

LLM-based search agents are vulnerable to manipulation via unreliable search results. An attacker can craft a website containing malicious content (e.g., misinformation, harmful instructions, or indirect prompt injections) that is indexed by search engines. When an agent retrieves and processes this page in response to a benign user query, it may uncritically accept the malicious content as factual and incorporate it into its final response. This allows the agent to be used as a vector for…

SafeSearch: Automated Red-Teaming for the Safety of LLM-Based Search Agents
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Pro +11 more

Source: arXiv

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

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) and multi-label text classification systems that allows for Textual Dynamic Outputs Attacks (TDOA). This technique enables hard-label black-box attacks against systems with variable or generative output spaces (where the number of labels or specific label tokens are not fixed). The attack functions by training a surrogate model on clustered coarse-grained labels derived from the victim model's fine-grained dynamic outputs. It subsequently…

Text Adversarial Attacks with Dynamic Outputs
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4.1 +5 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.