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

468 entries

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

AutoDAN: Interpretable LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

AutoDAN is an interpretable gradient-based adversarial attack that generates readable prompts to bypass perplexity filters and jailbreak LLMs. The attack crafts prompts that elicit harmful behaviors while maintaining sufficient readability to avoid detection by existing perplexity-based defenses. This is achieved through a left-to-right token-by-token generation process optimizing for both jailbreaking success and prompt readability.

Autodan: Automatic and interpretable adversarial attacks on large language models
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, Guanaco 7B+4 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Guanaco 7B
  • Llama 2 Chat
  • Pythia 12B
  • Vicuna 13B
  • Vicuna 7B

Parametric Model Unalignment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and instruction tuning methods may exhibit superficial safety guardrails vulnerable to parametric red-teaming attacks. Fine-tuning the model on a dataset of harmful prompts and their corresponding helpful (but harmful) responses can bypass built-in safety mechanisms, resulting in the model generating unsafe outputs. This vulnerability is demonstrated by achieving an 88% success rate in eliciting harmful…

Language model unalignment: Parametric red-teaming to expose hidden harms and biases
Evaluated models: Claude 1, Claude 2, GPT-4+6 more
  • Claude 1
  • Claude 2
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Vicuna 1 7B
  • Vicuna 1 13B
  • Vicuna 2 7B
  • Vicuna 2 13B

Decoding-Based LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a generation exploitation attack that leverages variations in decoding hyperparameters and sampling methods to bypass safety mechanisms. Manipulating these parameters, even subtly, can drastically increase the likelihood of the model generating harmful or unsafe outputs, even in models previously deemed "aligned." The attack is effective even when removing only the system prompt.

Catastrophic jailbreak of open-source llms via exploiting generation
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo

Fine-tuning Compromises LLM Safety

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Fine-tuning aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) on a small number of adversarially crafted examples, or even on benign datasets, can compromise their safety alignment, leading to the generation of harmful or inappropriate content. This vulnerability exploits the few-shot learning capabilities of LLMs, allowing attackers to override existing safety mechanisms with minimal effort and cost. Even unintentional fine-tuning with seemingly benign datasets can result in unintended safety degradation.

Fine-tuning aligned language models compromises safety, even when users do not intend to!
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, Llama 2 13B Chat, Llama 2 70B Chat+2 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Llama 2 70B Chat
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama-1

LLM Self-Deception Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a "self-deception" attack, where carefully crafted prompts induce the model to bypass its internal safety mechanisms and generate outputs that would normally be blocked (e.g., harmful, biased, or illegal content). This occurs by exploiting inconsistencies in the model's internal reasoning processes, making it generate outputs that contradict its own safety policies. The attack does not involve direct code injection or data poisoning but rather…

Self-deception: Reverse penetrating the semantic firewall of large language models
Evaluated models: Not reported

LLM Cipher Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4, while employing safety alignment techniques, exhibit vulnerability to "CipherChat" attacks. CipherChat leverages cipher prompts (e.g., ASCII, Unicode, Caesar cipher, Morse code) combined with system role descriptions and few-shot enciphered demonstrations to bypass safety mechanisms trained on natural language. This allows an attacker to elicit unsafe responses from the LLM, effectively evading safety filters. The vulnerability is amplified by the…

Gpt-4 is too smart to be safe: Stealthy chat with llms via cipher
Evaluated models: Claude 2, Falcon-chat-180B, GPT-3.5+5 more
  • Claude 2
  • Falcon-chat-180B
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Llama2-chat-13B
  • Llama-2-chat-70B
  • Llama2-chat-7B

Cross-Modal VLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in multi-modal large language models (LLMs) allows adversaries to bypass safety mechanisms through compositional adversarial attacks. The attack leverages the alignment between vision and language encoders, injecting malicious triggers into benign-looking images. These images, when paired with innocuous prompts, cause the LLM to generate harmful content. The attack requires access only to the vision encoder (e.g., CLIP), not the LLM itself, lowering the barrier to attack.

Jailbreak in pieces: Compositional adversarial attacks on multi-modal language models
Evaluated models: Llama-adapterv2

Visual Jailbreak of LLMs

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in vision-integrated Large Language Models (VLMs) allows an attacker to circumvent safety mechanisms through the use of adversarially crafted visual examples. A single, carefully constructed image can universally "jailbreak" the model, causing it to generate harmful content in response to a wide range of subsequent prompts, even those not included in the adversarial example's training data. This vulnerability extends beyond simple misclassification to encompass the execution of…

Visual adversarial examples jailbreak large language models
Evaluated models: InstructBLIP, MiniGPT-4

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.