Language Model Security Database

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are vulnerable to targeted, low-budget textual perturbations in their natural-language instruction inputs, which can maliciously alter sequential decision-making and downstream physical robotic behavior. Because VLA policies tightly couple language, perception, and control, bounded edits—such as character-level typos, token attribute swaps, or prompt-level uncertainty clauses—propagate through the model's execution trajectory. This allows a black-box…

A vulnerability in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (LLM-MAS) allows an attacker who controls a single arbitrary agent to map and extract the system's entire confidential communication topology. Unlike prior attacks that rely on direct identity queries and administrative privileges, this attack infers topology stealthily purely from contextual and linguistic signals (stylometry, role-specific syntax), bypassing standard keyword-based and identity-filtering defenses. The exploit relies on a…

A semantic slot filling vulnerability in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety filters and elicit prohibited content via a single query. The attack, known as StructAttack, decomposes a harmful instruction into a central topic and locally benign-appearing semantic slot types (e.g., "Raw Materials", "Making Process"). These individual slots are embedded into structured visual prompts (such as mind maps, tables, or sunburst diagrams) alongside harmless distractor…

The OpenClaw autonomous agent framework lacks execution sandboxing, running agents directly on the host machine with the disk and system privileges of the host user. This architecture allows attackers to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) and arbitrary data exfiltration via Indirect Prompt Injection. By embedding malicious instructions within external data sources (e.g., scraped web pages or uploaded documents), an attacker can hijack the agent's planning capabilities to sequentially chain…

Multi-Agent Systems based on Large Language Models (LLM-MAS) are vulnerable to systemic Consensus Corruption via cascading error amplification. Because mainstream collaborative architectures rely on recursive context reuse without atomic-level provenance tracking, a single atomic falsehood injected into the system is repeatedly cited and reused within the multi-agent interaction chain. This structural exposure causes the error to deterministically compound across the communication graph…

Inference-time Personally Identifiable Information (PII) leakage is significantly amplified when using Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting or reasoning-enabled Large Language Models (LLMs). When an attacker or user elicits step-by-step reasoning or utilizes models with native "thinking" token budgets, sensitive context data provided in the prompt is directly resurfaced into intermediate reasoning steps or the final output. This bypasses output-level privacy policies instructing the model not to…

An "in-content harm" vulnerability exists in safety-aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) where task-level alignment mechanisms fail to evaluate the safety of user-provided external data. Attackers can bypass safety guardrails by embedding policy-violating text (e.g., violence, self-harm, explicit content) within the payload of a seemingly benign, policy-compliant task (e.g., translation, summarization, grammar polishing). Because the primary instruction is harmless, the LLM's safety filters…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreak technique termed "Priority Hacking." Adversaries can bypass safety alignments by exploiting the model's internal priority graph, where certain abstract values (e.g., justice, public health) implicitly outweigh general safety restrictions within specific contexts. By crafting a deceptive prompt that frames a malicious request as a necessary action in service of a higher-priority benign value, attackers engineer a value conflict. The…

Leading Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit significant cross-lingual safety drift, allowing users to bypass safety guardrails by translating harmful prompts into low-resource Indic languages. While models effectively block unsafe prompts concerning caste, religion, gender, and politics in high-resource languages like English and Hindi, their safety alignment severely degrades in low-resource scripts such as Odia, Telugu, Kannada, and Punjabi. Evaluated models demonstrate a cross-language…

Safety-aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a "Defensive Refusal Bias" vulnerability, resulting in a safety-induced denial-of-service for legitimate cybersecurity operations. The models systematically refuse authorized defensive queries when they contain security-sensitive terminology (e.g., "exploit," "payload," "shell") because current alignment mechanisms rely on semantic similarity to harmful training data rather than intent analysis. Paradoxically, explicit authorization signals…