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

539 entries

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

Fine-tuning Safety Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), even those initially aligned for safety, are vulnerable to having their safety mechanisms compromised through fine-tuning on a small number of adversarially-crafted or even seemingly benign sentences. Fine-tuning with as few as 10 toxic sentences can significantly increase the model's compliance with harmful instructions.

Locking down the finetuned llms safety
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, Llama 3 70B Chat+4 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 3 70B Chat
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • Llama-3-8B Chat
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Mistral-large-2 123B

Multi-Objective LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a multi-objective black-box jailbreaking attack (BlackDAN) that optimizes prompts to maximize the likelihood of generating unsafe responses while maintaining contextual relevance and minimizing detectability. The attack leverages a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (NSGA-II) to balance attack success rate, semantic consistency, and stealthiness, resulting in more effective and less easily detectable jailbreaks than single-objective approaches.

BlackDAN: A Black-Box Multi-Objective Approach for Effective and Contextual Jailbreaking of Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Aquilachat-7B, Baichuan 2 13B Chat, Baichuan-7B+12 more
  • Aquilachat-7B
  • Baichuan 2 13B Chat
  • Baichuan-7B
  • GPT-2 XL
  • Internlm2-chat-7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama-2-13B-hf
  • Llama-2-7B-hf
  • Llava v1.6-mistral-7B-hf
  • Llava-v1.6-vicuna-7B-hf
  • Minitron-8B-base
  • Vicuna 13B v1.5
  • Vicuna 7B
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5
  • Yi 1.5 9B Chat

Attention-Guided Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks that manipulate attention scores to redirect the model's focus away from safety protocols. The AttnGCG attack method increases the attention score on adversarial suffixes within the input prompt, causing the model to prioritize the malicious content over safety guidelines, leading to the generation of harmful outputs.

AttnGCG: Enhancing jailbreaking attacks on LLMs with attention manipulation
Evaluated models: Gemini 1.5 Flash, Gemini Pro, Gemini 1.5 Pro Latest+6 more
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • Gemini Pro
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro Latest
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Mixtral 8x7B Instruct
  • Vicuna 13B
  • Vicuna 7B

Preference Poisoning Extrapolation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) undergoing alignment via preference learning (such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback [RLHF] or Direct Preference Optimization [DPO]) are vulnerable to backdoor attacks through data poisoning. An attacker can inject a small percentage (e.g., 3% to 5%) of poisoned data into the preference dataset $\mathcal{D} = \{(x, y_w, y_l)\}$. The attack embeds a specific trigger string into the user query $x$.

Poisonbench: Assessing large language model vulnerability to data poisoning
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B+4 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Phi-3

Context-Shifting Code Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) acting as code assistants may recommend malicious code or resources when presented with prompts framed as programming challenges, even if they refuse similar direct prompts. This occurs due to insufficient context-aware safety mechanisms. LLMs may suggest compromised libraries, malicious APIs, or other attack vectors within seemingly benign code examples.

Hallucinating AI Hijacking Attack: Large Language Models and Malicious Code Recommenders
Evaluated models: GPT-4

Gradient Image Jailbreaks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal fusion models, such as Chameleon models, utilize non-differentiable tokenization functions for image inputs, hindering direct gradient-based attacks. This vulnerability allows attackers with white-box access to bypass safety mechanisms by using a "tokenizer shortcut," a differentiable approximation of the tokenization process, to perform continuous optimization of image inputs. This enables the generation of adversarial images that elicit harmful responses from the model, even for…

Gradient-based jailbreak images for multimodal fusion models
Evaluated models: Chameleon 30B, Chameleon 7B, LLaVA 1.6 Llama 3

Implicit Reference Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to an attack vector termed "Attack via Implicit Reference" (AIR). AIR bypasses safety mechanisms by decomposing a malicious objective into multiple benign, seemingly unrelated objectives linked through implicit contextual references. The LLM generates harmful content by combining the outputs of these seemingly harmless objectives, without explicitly triggering safety filters designed to detect direct requests for malicious content.

You Know What I'm Saying: Jailbreak Attack via Implicit Reference
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini+7 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4o-0513
  • Llama 3 70B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Qwen 2 7B
  • Qwen 2 0.5B
  • Qwen 2 1.5B
  • Qwen 2 72B

Iterative Image Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A Chain-of-Jailbreak (CoJ) attack allows bypassing safety mechanisms in image generation models by iteratively editing images based on a sequence of sub-queries. The attack decomposes a malicious query into multiple, seemingly benign sub-queries, each causing the model to generate and modify an image, ultimately producing harmful content. Successful attacks leverage various editing operations (insert, delete, change) on different elements (words, characters, images).

Chain-of-Jailbreak Attack for Image Generation Models via Editing Step by Step
Evaluated models: Gemini 1.5 Pro, GPT-4o, GPT-4V

RAFT: Realistic LLM Detector Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) detectors are vulnerable to a realistic adversarial attack ("RAFT") that substitutes words in machine-generated text to evade detection. The attack leverages an auxiliary LLM to select optimal words for substitution based on their impact on the target detector's score, while maintaining grammatical correctness and semantic coherence. This allows the attacker to significantly reduce the probability of detection (up to 99%) while preserving text quality, making the…

Raft: Realistic attacks to fool text detectors
Evaluated models: GPT-2, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4+11 more
  • GPT-2
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-J 6B
  • GPT-Neo 2.7B
  • Llama 3 70B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B v0.3
  • Mixtral 8x7B Instruct
  • OPT 2.7B
  • RoBERTa Base
  • RoBERTa Large
  • T5

Autonomous Jailbreak Agent

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreak attacks using autonomously discovered strategies. AutoDAN-Turbo, a black-box attack method, demonstrates the ability to discover novel and highly effective jailbreak strategies without human intervention, achieving a high success rate (e.g., 88.5% on GPT-4-1106-turbo) in eliciting harmful or unsafe responses from LLMs. The attack leverages a lifelong learning agent to iteratively refine attack strategies based on model responses…

Autodan-turbo: A lifelong agent for strategy self-exploration to jailbreak llms
Evaluated models: Gemini Pro, Gemma 7B IT, GPT-4-1106-turbo+5 more
  • Gemini Pro
  • Gemma 7B IT
  • GPT-4-1106-turbo
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Llama 2 70B Chat
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 70B
  • 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.