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

101 entries

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

Production LLM Copyright Extraction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Production Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to long-form training data extraction via a two-phase prompt injection attack. This vulnerability allows an attacker to recover substantial portions of memorized, copyrighted text (such as novels) by exploiting the model's autoregressive text completion capabilities. The attack methodology involves two distinct phases: 1. Prefix Completion Probe: The attacker provides a short "seed" sequence (e.g., the first sentence of a book) coupled…

Extracting Books from Production Language Models
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet 20250219, GPT-4.1 2025-04-14, Gemini 2.5 Pro+1 more
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet 20250219
  • GPT-4.1 2025-04-14
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Grok 3

AI Agent Structural Blindspot

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in AI agent threat detection systems relying on standard conversational tokenization allows attackers to bypass security monitors and execute structural attacks, such as tool hijacking and data exfiltration. Because traditional NLP-based detectors focus on linguistic patterns (surface language) rather than execution flow, an attacker can orchestrate malicious multi-step tool sequences using entirely benign natural language. This structural blindness causes cross-attack…

Structural Representations for Cross-Attack Generalization in AI Agent Threat Detection
Evaluated models: Not reported

Automated Prompt Recommender Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLaMA-series models (specifically evaluated on LLaMA-1B and LLaMA-3B) exhibit memorization of structured recommender system training data, specifically the MovieLens-1M dataset. While manual prompting yields inconsistent results, the application of Automatic Prompt Engineering (APE)—which treats prompt design as an optimization problem using iterative refinement—allows for the successful extraction of item-level training data (e.g., movie titles and genres) with exact-match accuracy surpassing…

Exploring Approaches for Detecting Memorization of Recommender System Data in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Not reported

Aggressive Compression Model Theft

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) hosted on inference servers are vulnerable to high-speed weight exfiltration attacks due to the inherent compressibility of transformer parameters when decompression constraints are relaxed. Adversaries with compromised server access can utilize aggressive lossy compression techniques—specifically additive quantization combined with k-means clustering—to reduce model size by factors of 16x to 100x (e.g., <1 bit per parameter). Unlike standard quantization for…

Aggressive Compression Enables LLM Weight Theft
Evaluated models: Qwen 2 1.5B, Qwen 2 7B, Qwen 2.5 0.5B+2 more
  • Qwen 2 1.5B
  • Qwen 2 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 0.5B
  • Qwen 2.5 1.5B
  • Pythia 70M

Cross-Environment Agent Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating in tool-augmented environments are susceptible to "Contextual Fragility" and multi-turn "long-chain" exploitation. Existing safety mechanisms predominantly function on a stateless, atomic paradigm, evaluating individual input-output pairs in isolation. This allows an adversary to orchestrate complex attack trajectories where malicious intent is distributed across multiple, individually benign steps (a "Domino Effect"). Consequently, an attacker can…

DREAM: Dynamic Red-teaming for Evaluating Agentic Multi-Environment Security
Evaluated models: o4-mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5+8 more
  • o4-mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • GPT-5
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Grok 4
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • Kimi K2 Preview
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B
  • DeepSeek V3.1

Guardrail Policy Extraction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A black-box guardrail reverse-engineering vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) serving systems that employ output filtering mechanisms. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to replicate the proprietary decision-making policy and rule sets of the target's safety guardrail without direct access to model parameters. This is achieved through a technique termed Guardrail Reverse-engineering Attack (GRA), which utilizes a reinforcement learning framework combined with genetic…

Black-Box Guardrail Reverse-engineering Attack
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B

Pervasive Multi-turn Jailbreaks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multiple open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs)—specifically those prioritizing capability over safety alignment—exhibit a critical vulnerability to adaptive multi-turn prompt injection and jailbreak attacks. While these models effectively reject isolated, single-turn adversarial inputs (averaging ~13.11% Attack Success Rate), they fail to maintain safety guardrails and policy enforcement across extended conversational contexts. By leveraging iterative strategies such as "Crescendo" (gradual…

Death by a Thousand Prompts: Open Model Vulnerability Analysis
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Mistral Large 2+5 more
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Mistral Large 2
  • DeepSeek V3.1
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Gemma 3 1B
  • Phi-4
  • GLM 4.5 Air

Latent Space Discontinuity Exploitation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in certain Large Language Models and diffusion models due to discontinuities in their latent space, which arise from data sparsity during training. An attacker can craft inputs containing lexically rare or semantically ambiguous constructs to guide the model's inference process toward these unstable, poorly-conditioned regions. This technique, termed "Alignment Degradation Induction," can degrade or bypass safety alignment mechanisms. Through iterative, multi-turn…

Exploiting Latent Space Discontinuities for Building Universal LLM Jailbreaks and Data Extraction Attacks
Evaluated models: Not reported

Mobile Agent Channel Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Mobile LLM-based agents (including Mobile-Agent-E, AppAgent, AutoDroid, and others) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks delivered via untrusted third-party mobile channels, such as in-app advertisements, system notifications, and embedded webviews. These agents utilize Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to perceive the device state via screenshots or accessibility trees. The vulnerability exists because the agents concatenate the user's prompt ($p$) with the environmental…

Measuring the Security of Mobile LLM Agents under Adversarial Prompts from Untrusted Third-Party Channels
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o+1 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1 Mini

Trust Paradox Agent Over-Exposure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A privilege escalation and information disclosure vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) utilizing explicit inter-agent trust modeling. When the internal trust coefficient ($\tau$) between a Custodian-Agent (holding sensitive data) and a Seeker-Agent is set to a high level (e.g., $\tau=0.9$) to optimize coordination efficiency, the Custodian-Agent systematically fails to enforce Minimum Necessary Information (MNI) principles. This…

The Trust Paradox in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems: When Collaboration Becomes a Security Vulnerability
Evaluated models: 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.