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

736 entries

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

Judge LLM Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Improper Input Validation in Large Language Model (LLM) systems configured as automated evaluators ("LLM-as-a-judge") allows remote attackers to manipulate evaluation scores and comparative verdicts via adversarial prompt injection. The vulnerability arises when the model processes untrusted input containing linguistic masquerading, context separators, and disruptor commands (e.g., "Basic Injection", "Contextual Misdirection", and "Adaptive Search-Based Attack"). Successful exploitation…

Adversarial Attacks on LLM-as-a-Judge Systems: Insights from Prompt Injections
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Claude 3 Opus, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct+2 more
  • GPT-4
  • Claude 3 Opus
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Gemma 3 4B IT
  • Gemma 3 27B IT

MAD Amplified Jailbreaks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) frameworks leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to amplified jailbreak attacks. A novel structured prompt-rewriting technique exploits the iterative dialogue and role-playing dynamics of MAD, circumventing inherent safety mechanisms and significantly increasing the likelihood of generating harmful content. The attack succeeds by using narrative encapsulation, role-driven escalation, iterative refinement, and rhetorical obfuscation to guide agents…

Amplified Vulnerabilities: Structured Jailbreak Attacks on LLM-based Multi-Agent Debate
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, GPT-4o

Dual Jailbreak via TDI/MTO

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the combination of Large Language Models (LLMs) and their associated safety guardrails, allowing attackers to bypass both defenses and elicit harmful or unintended outputs from LLMs. The vulnerability stems from insufficient detection by guardrails against adversarially crafted prompts, which appear benign but contain hidden malicious intent. The attack, dubbed "DualBreach," leverages a target-driven initialization strategy and multi-target optimization to generate…

DualBreach: Efficient Dual-Jailbreaking via Target-Driven Initialization and Multi-Target Optimization
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, Llama 3 8B Instruct+1 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Chained Guardrail Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating in stateful environments (web browsers, operating systems, and tool-use contexts) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection and multi-modal adversarial attacks. These vulnerabilities arise when agents process untrusted environmental observations—such as web accessibility trees, screen screenshots, or database query results—that contain concealed malicious instructions. Specifically, attackers can embed prompt injections into HTML accessibility…

DoomArena: A Framework for Testing AI Agents Against Evolving Security Threats
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Claude 3.5 Sonnet+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Llama Guard

Graph-Based LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv
Research ID c32aa29e

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing safety mechanisms are vulnerable to a graph-based attack that leverages semantic transformations of malicious prompts to bypass safety filters. The attack, termed GraphAttack, uses Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR), Resource Description Framework (RDF), and JSON knowledge graphs to represent malicious intent, systematically applying transformations to evade surface-level pattern recognition used by existing safety mechanisms. A particularly effective…

GraphAttack: Exploiting Representational Blindspots in LLM Safety Mechanisms
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4+3 more
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct

GUI Agent Fine-Print Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-powered GUI agents utilizing screenshot-based interpretation (such as those powered by GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and DeepSeek V3 0324) are vulnerable to Fine-Print Injection (FPI) and Deceptive Default (DD) attacks due to a lack of visual saliency filtering. Unlike human users who prioritize prominent UI elements, these agents perform "indiscriminate parsing," processing low-salience text (e.g., privacy policies, terms of service, footer disclaimers) with the same…

The Obvious Invisible Threat: LLM-Powered GUI Agents' Vulnerability to Fine-Print Injections
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Claude 3.7 Sonnet+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • DeepSeek V3 0324

LLM Guardrail Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) guardrail systems, including those relying on AI-driven text classification models (e.g., fine-tuned BERT models), are vulnerable to evasion via character injection and adversarial machine learning (AML) techniques. Attackers can bypass detection by injecting Unicode characters (e.g., zero-width characters, homoglyphs) or using AML to subtly perturb prompts, maintaining semantic meaning while evading classification. This allows malicious prompts and jailbreaks to…

Bypassing Prompt Injection and Jailbreak Detection in LLM Guardrails
Evaluated models: DeBERTa v3 Base, GPT-4o Mini, mDeBERTa v3 Base

Multi-Agent Jailbreak Strategy

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in multiple LLMs allowing attackers to elicit harmful responses by strategically distributing malicious intent across multiple turns in a conversation. The vulnerability is not detected by single-turn safety measures, as the harmful intent is only revealed through a sequence of seemingly benign prompts. The vulnerability is exacerbated by the use of techniques such as prompt optimization that dynamically adjust prompts based on model responses, maximizing the likelihood…

X-teaming: Multi-turn jailbreaks and defenses with adaptive multi-agents
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek V3+7 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

Many-Shot In-Context Override

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Many-Shot Jailbreaking (MSJ) is an adversarial technique that circumvents the safety alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) by exploiting their In-Context Learning (ICL) capabilities and extended context windows. By embedding a large number of "shots" (fake dialogue examples) within a single prompt—where a simulated assistant complies with harmful requests—the attacker conditions the model to ignore its safety training. As the number of malicious examples increases (following a power-law…

Mitigating Many-Shot Jailbreaking
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B

Genetic Scenario Shift Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety mechanisms and elicit detailed harmful responses by strategically manipulating input prompts. The vulnerability exploits the LLM's sensitivity to "scenario shifts"—contextual changes in the input that influence the model's output, even when the core malicious request remains the same. A genetic algorithm can optimize these scenario shifts, increasing the likelihood of obtaining detailed harmful responses while…

Geneshift: Impact of different scenario shift on Jailbreaking LLM
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini

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.