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

273 entries

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

RAG Arbitrary Query Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A compound vulnerability in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems allows attackers to deterministically hijack model outputs for arbitrary user queries without prior knowledge of the user's input. The vulnerability, identified as PIDP-Attack, requires a dual-vector exploitation: database poisoning and query-path prompt injection. First, the attacker injects a small number of poisoned passages into the RAG database, each starting with an attacker-chosen "target question" followed by a…

PIDP-Attack: Combining Prompt Injection with Database Poisoning Attacks on Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2 7B, Qwen 2.5 7B

MCP Tool-Metadata Prompt Injection in Coding Agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper presents a controlled, reproducible evaluation in which untrusted MCP tool descriptions contain hidden instructions that attempt to induce coding agents to access files, invoke other tools, create deceptive links, or execute remote scripts. The authors report that several clients accepted poisoned metadata without adequate validation or parameter visibility; Cursor 1.6.45 was reported unsafe across all four tested vectors. These are paper-reported results from isolated local tests…

Are AI-assisted Development Tools Immune to Prompt Injection?
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.5, Grok Code Fast 1, Gemini 2.5 Pro+1 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Grok Code Fast 1
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Claude Opus 4

Agent Tool Execution Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A multi-step tool execution vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing the Model Context Protocol (MCP) or similar tool-calling frameworks. Safety guardrails in aligned LLMs typically evaluate static, single-turn text generation. Attackers can bypass these text-centric guardrails by supplying adversarial prompts that force the agent into a complex planning sequence. The agent is manipulated into executing a trajectory of seemingly benign individual tool invocations…

T-MAP: Red-Teaming LLM Agents with Trajectory-aware Evolutionary Search
Evaluated models: GPT-5, Gemini Pro, DeepSeek V3

Stage-Sequential Agent Escalation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Agentic Large Language Model (LLM) systems utilizing persistent memory, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, and external tool connectors are vulnerable to Logic-layer Prompt Control Injection (LPCI). An attacker can inject obfuscated (e.g., encoded, structurally nested, or semantically reframed) payloads into external memory stores or RAG documents. These payloads bypass conventional inference-time plaintext content filters, persist across session boundaries, and remain dormant…

LAAF: Logic-layer Automated Attack Framework A Systematic Red-Teaming Methodology for LPCI Vulnerabilities in Agentic Large Language Model Systems
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Claude 3 Haiku, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct+2 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Mixtral 8x7B Instruct

Visual Confused Deputy Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A "Visual Confused Deputy" vulnerability exists in Computer-Using Agents (CUAs) that rely on visual perception to execute coordinate-based GUI actions (e.g., click(x,y)). Because the agent's understanding of the system state is entirely dependent on the screenshot provided by the runtime, a compromised runtime or tool can intercept and alter the screenshot pixels before forwarding them to the LLM. By visually swapping the locations of benign and privileged UI elements, an attacker can trick…

Visual Confused Deputy: Exploiting and Defending Perception Failures in Computer-Using Agents
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Autonomous Agent Tool RCE

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The OpenClaw autonomous agent framework lacks execution sandboxing, running agents directly on the host machine with the disk and system privileges of the host user. This architecture allows attackers to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) and arbitrary data exfiltration via Indirect Prompt Injection. By embedding malicious instructions within external data sources (e.g., scraped web pages or uploaded documents), an attacker can hijack the agent's planning capabilities to sequentially chain…

Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw
Evaluated models: Not reported

Agent Document Instruction Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

High-privilege LLM agents with filesystem and network access are vulnerable to documentation-embedded instruction injection, an issue termed the "Trusted Executor Dilemma." When autonomously processing external workflow documents (e.g., README.md files or setup guides) during software installation workflows, agents implicitly trust and execute embedded text instructions without verifying their underlying intent. Attackers can embed syntactically valid, malicious directives (such as data…

You Told Me to Do It: Measuring Instructional Text-induced Private Data Leakage in LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, o3, o3-mini+5 more
  • GPT-4o
  • o3
  • o3-mini
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Agent Lifecycle Compound Threats

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

OpenClaw is vulnerable to persistent memory poisoning, allowing an attacker to manipulate the agent's long-term memory store (MEMORY.md) via prompt injection. Because the autonomous agent continuously integrates this memory file as context for all subsequent reasoning and task planning, injected payloads act as durable behavioral constraints. This allows an attacker to persistently alter the agent's core policy, manipulate tool selection, and hijack future sessions without any further…

Taming openclaw: Security analysis and mitigation of autonomous llm agent threats
Evaluated models: Not reported

Arbitrary Agent Topology Breach

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (LLM-MAS) allows an attacker who controls a single arbitrary agent to map and extract the system's entire confidential communication topology. Unlike prior attacks that rely on direct identity queries and administrative privileges, this attack infers topology stealthily purely from contextual and linguistic signals (stylometry, role-specific syntax), bypassing standard keyword-based and identity-filtering defenses. The exploit relies on a…

WebWeaver: Breaking Topology Confidentiality in LLM Multi-Agent Systems with Stealthy Context-Based Inference
Evaluated models: Llama 3 70B, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral Large 12B+3 more
  • Llama 3 70B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral Large 12B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • Phi-3

Cascading Agent False Consensus

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-Agent Systems based on Large Language Models (LLM-MAS) are vulnerable to systemic Consensus Corruption via cascading error amplification. Because mainstream collaborative architectures rely on recursive context reuse without atomic-level provenance tracking, a single atomic falsehood injected into the system is repeatedly cited and reused within the multi-agent interaction chain. This structural exposure causes the error to deterministically compound across the communication graph…

From Spark to Fire: Modeling and Mitigating Error Cascades in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

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.