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

260 entries

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

Heavy Reasoning Filter Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multiple open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) in the 1B to 7B parameter range are vulnerable to safety bypasses via long-form, multi-step reasoning prompt injection and jailbreak attacks. Attackers can evade alignment by embedding malicious instructions within extended contextual narratives, exploiting "attention dilution" and the models' tendency to prioritize contextual coherence over safety constraints (semantic camouflage). These reasoning-heavy attacks consistently bypass standard…

Analysis of LLMs Against Prompt Injection and Jailbreak Attacks
Evaluated models: Phi-3 Mini 3.8B, Mistral 7B, DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B+7 more
  • Phi-3 Mini 3.8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B
  • Llama 3.2 3B
  • Llama 3.2 1B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 1.7B
  • Gemma 3 1B
  • Gemma 3 4B

Natural Language Disguise Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based Code Interpreter Agents, including OpenInterpreter and OpenCodeInterpreter, are vulnerable to sandbox evasion and arbitrary code execution via Natural Language Disguise and Contextual Channel Injection. Attackers can bypass Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) static analysis and explicit input guardrails by transforming malicious code logic into descriptive natural language instructions (Code Descriptions), which successfully evade syntax-layer blocks. Additionally, attackers can bypass input…

CIBER: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Security Evaluation of Code Interpreter Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, GPT-5

TEE Advisor Hallucination

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based security advisors exhibit systematic reasoning failures—including boundary confusion, attestation overclaiming, and mitigation hallucination—when providing architectural guidance for Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) like Intel SGX and Arm TrustZone. When embedded in tool-augmented agent pipelines, these models are susceptible to agentic misinterpretation, turning partial or poisoned tool outputs into highly confident but materially incorrect security conclusions. This…

Red-Teaming Claude Opus and ChatGPT-based Security Advisors for Trusted Execution Environments
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6

Thought Virus Network Infection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) allows an attacker to propagate covert biases and misalignment across multiple agents via subliminal prompting, an attack vector termed "Thought Virus." By injecting a seemingly benign, semantically unrelated token (such as a specific 3-digit number) into the prompt of a single compromised agent, an attacker can induce a specific targeted behavior (e.g., outputting a specific target concept or decreasing factual truthfulness). This induced…

Thought Virus: Viral Misalignment via Subliminal Prompting in Multi-Agent Systems
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Role-Confusion Prompt Injection via Forged Reasoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper describes a reproducible prompt-injection failure in which low-privilege user or tool-output text that imitates a trusted role—especially a model’s reasoning style—is treated as authoritative. Its zero-shot, black-box “CoT Forgery” evaluation injects fabricated reasoning into user prompts and retrieved webpage/tool output. The authors report 60% average attack success on StrongREJECT and 56–70% success in an agent data-exfiltration evaluation, versus near-zero or substantially lower…

Prompt Injection as Role Confusion
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, GPT-oss 120B, o4-mini+6 more
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • o4-mini
  • GPT-5 Nano
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5
  • GLM-4.6
  • Kimi K2 Instruct
  • MiniMax M2

Indic Language Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multiple large language models are vulnerable to cross-lingual and orthographic jailbreaks utilizing South Asian (Indic) languages. Attackers can bypass safety alignment and elicit harmful content by formulating requests in native Indic scripts (e.g., Bengali, Odia, Urdu) or by utilizing cross-lingual transfer attacks where English adversarial wrappers (format or instruction overrides) encapsulate Indic-language targets. Evaluations reveal a severe "contract gap": while imposing strict JSON…

IndicJR: A Judge-Free Benchmark of Jailbreak Robustness in South Asian Languages
Evaluated models: Command A, Command R, Gemma 2 9B+9 more
  • Command A
  • Command R
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • GPT-4o
  • Grok 3
  • Grok 4
  • Llama 3.1 405B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Llama 4 Maverick 17B
  • Ministral 8B Instruct
  • Qwen 1.5 7B
  • Sarvam 1 Base

Long-Horizon Agent Attacks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM agents equipped with tool-use, persistent memory, and environmental interaction capabilities are vulnerable to long-horizon attacks. Attackers can bypass single-turn safety guardrails by exploiting the temporal dimension of multi-turn interactions to incrementally steer agent behavior. The vulnerability manifests because the agent's safety mechanisms perform localized, single-step evaluations but fail to maintain semantic safety across extended interaction trajectories. This enables…

AgentLAB: Benchmarking LLM Agents against Long-Horizon Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Flash+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5.1
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5

Structural Template Agent Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in LLM-based autonomous agents allows remote attackers to hijack agent execution via Structural Template Injection (STI). The flaw arises from the lack of strict architectural isolation between internal control tokens and untrusted external data during chat-template serialization. By embedding framework-specific special tokens (e.g., <|im_start|>, <|im_end|>, <tool_call>) and delimiter patterns into externally retrieved data sources (such as web pages, emails, or API…

Automating Agent Hijacking via Structural Template Injection
Evaluated models: GPT-4, GPT-4o, DeepSeek V3

Visual Memory Multi-Turn Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to Visual Memory Injection (VMI), a stealthy targeted attack targeting multi-turn conversations. An attacker can embed an imperceptible adversarial perturbation ($L_\infty \le 8/255$) into a seemingly benign image. Because the visual input persists in the model's context throughout a multi-turn dialogue, the injected payload remains dormant. By utilizing "benign anchoring" and "context-cycling" during optimization, the attacker ensures the…

Visual Memory Injection Attacks for Multi-Turn Conversations
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, Qwen3-VL 8B Instruct, LLaVA-OneVision 1.5 8B Instruct+2 more
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen3-VL 8B Instruct
  • LLaVA-OneVision 1.5 8B Instruct
  • Qwen-SEA-LION v4 8B VL
  • QoQ-Med3-VL 8B

Zombie Agent Persistence

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Self-evolving Large Language Model (LLM) agents that utilize long-term memory mechanisms (such as Vector Databases for Retrieval-Augmented Generation or Sliding Window buffers) are vulnerable to persistent indirect prompt injection. This vulnerability, termed "Zombie Agent," occurs when the agent's memory update function ($F_M$) processes attacker-controlled content retrieved from external sources (e.g., web pages, documents) and commits it to long-term storage without sufficient sanitization…

Zombie Agents: Persistent Control of Self-Evolving LLM Agents via Self-Reinforcing Injections
Evaluated models: Not reported

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.