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

114 entries

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

RL Adversarial Function Call

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) enabled with Function Calling (FC) capabilities are vulnerable to adversarial query rewriting and semantic manipulation. Standard FC models, typically trained via Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on static datasets, fail to generalize against adversarial inputs that deviate from fixed distribution patterns. An attacker can exploit this by crafting queries that are semantically similar to valid requests but engineered to induce "bad cases," such as incorrect tool…

Exploring Weaknesses in Function Call Models via Reinforcement Learning: An Adversarial Data Augmentation Approach
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct, Qwen 3 0.6B, Qwen 3 4B+1 more
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B

Sound Induces Trimodal Collapse

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in trimodal audio-video-language models where an attacker can systematically degrade multimodal reasoning through untargeted, audio-only adversarial perturbations. By optimizing a shared perturbation $\delta$ applied to the audio channel, an attacker can manipulate internal representations—specifically targeting audio encoder embeddings and cross-modal attention mechanisms—without modifying visual or textual inputs. The attack exploits the model's reliance on the audio…

SoundBreak: A Systematic Study of Audio-Only Adversarial Attacks on Trimodal Models
Evaluated models: VideoLLAMA2, Qwen 2 7B Instruct, Whisper Large-v2+1 more
  • VideoLLAMA2
  • Qwen 2 7B Instruct
  • Whisper Large-v2
  • PANNs

Nugget Overfitting Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

AutoArgue, an LLM-based evaluation framework for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems, is susceptible to evaluation subversion attacks due to the public availability of its judging prompts and reference data structures. An adversarial RAG system (exemplified by the "Crucible" probe) can incorporate "insider knowledge" of the evaluation logic directly into its generation pipeline. By wrapping the generation process with the evaluator's specific prompts, the system can pre-filter…

Insider Knowledge: How Much Can RAG Systems Gain from Evaluation Secrets?
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.3 70B

Point Cloud Adversarial Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Point-based 3D Vision-Language Models (VLMs), specifically PointLLM and GPT4Point, are vulnerable to white-box, gradient-based adversarial attacks. The vulnerability exists in the model's processing of 3D point cloud data, where an attacker can optimize imperceptible geometric perturbations ($\delta$) on the input point cloud ($x$) to manipulate the model's textual output. The paper identifies two specific attack vectors: 1. Vision Attack: Directly perturbs the high-dimensional visual token…

On the Adversarial Robustness of 3D Large Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Vicuna 7B

LLM Fingerprint Inhibition

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Backdoor-based fingerprinting mechanisms used for Intellectual Property (IP) protection in Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to evasion when deployed in model ensemble configurations. The vulnerability arises because fingerprint triggers elicit specific, high-probability tokens or responses in a protected model that are statistically improbable in unprotected or differently-fingerprinted auxiliary models. Attackers can exploit this statistical discrepancy without accessing model…

Inhibitory Attacks on Backdoor-based Fingerprinting for Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.2 3B+2 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.2 3B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

Quantization Contrastive Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A malicious model supply chain vulnerability exists involving a technique termed Adversarial Contrastive Learning (ACL) for Large Language Model (LLM) quantization attacks. This vulnerability allows an attacker to publish a model that appears benign and preserves high utility in full precision (e.g., BF16 or FP32) but exhibits malicious behaviors—such as jailbreak, over-refusal, or advertisement injection—immediately upon zero-shot quantization (e.g., INT8, FP4, or NF4).

Adversarial Contrastive Learning for LLM Quantization Attacks
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct+1 more
  • Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

LoRA Unverified Product Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

In distributed Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) fine-tuning systems, a structural verification blind spot exists due to the decoupled aggregation of low-rank matrices. Frameworks typically evaluate and aggregate the $A$ and $B$ matrices independently to reduce computational overhead. A malicious client can exploit this by submitting individually benign $A$ and $B$ matrices that satisfy standard norm-based and similarity-based anomaly detection filters, but whose composite product ($A \times B$)…

Low Rank Comes with Low Security: Gradient Assembly Poisoning Attacks against Distributed LoRA-based LLM Systems
Evaluated models: ChatGLM2 6B, GPT-2 124M, Llama 7B+2 more
  • ChatGLM2 6B
  • GPT-2 124M
  • Llama 7B
  • Llama 13B
  • Llama 33B

Adversarial Vision Degrades VLM

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language and Vision Assistant (LLaVA) v1.5-13B and Meta Llama 3.2 11B Vision are vulnerable to adversarial evasion attacks targeting the visual input modality. An attacker with white-box access (knowledge of model architecture and gradients) can employ Projected Gradient Descent (PGD) to generate adversarial perturbations constrained by an L-infinity norm. By maximizing the model's internal loss function with respect to the input image, the attacker can force the Vision-Language Model…

Adversarial Robustness of Vision in Open Foundation Models
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 13B, Llama 3.2 11B Vision

Template and Suffix Optimization

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) that allows for safety alignment bypass through an advanced jailbreaking technique called Template and Suffix Optimization (TASO). The attack combines two distinct optimization methods in an alternating, iterative feedback loop. First, a semantically meaningless adversarial suffix is optimized (e.g., using gradient-based methods like GCG) to force the LLM to begin its response with an affirmative phrase (e.g., "Sure, here is...")…

TASO: Jailbreak LLMs via Alternative Template and Suffix Optimization
Evaluated models: Baichuan 2 13B, Baichuan 2 7B, DeepSeek 7B+27 more
  • Baichuan 2 13B
  • Baichuan 2 7B
  • DeepSeek 7B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama 2 70B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 70B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama Guard
  • Llama Guard 2 8B
  • Llama Guard 3 1B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Mixtral 8x7B
  • Orca 2 7B
  • Qwen 14B
  • Qwen 32B
  • Qwen 72B
  • Qwen 7B
  • Solar 10.7B
  • Vicuna 7B
  • Zephyr 7B

Adaptive Monitor Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

AI control protocols utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) as "trusted monitors" to oversee stronger "untrusted" models are vulnerable to adaptive prompt injection attacks. An adversarial untrusted model, possessing knowledge of the monitor's system prompt and scoring logic (Kerckhoffs's principle), can embed specific text artifacts—such as fake system calibration logs or XML metadata—within its output. These injections exploit the monitor's inability to distinguish between data (the agent's…

Adaptive Attacks on Trusted Monitors Subvert AI Control Protocols
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4.1+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-5
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • DeepSeek Chat

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.