Language Model Security Database

LLM-based autonomous agents deployed in multi-turn, structured environments are vulnerable to adaptive, profit-driven semantic exploitation. Rather than utilizing traditional malformed prompt injections or jailbreaks, an attacker can leverage valid interaction channels to execute social engineering, protocol spoofing, and authority impersonation tactics. By strategically shaping the environment's context—such as feigning technical constraints, fabricating evaluation harnesses, or manipulating…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to automated long-tail distribution attacks that exploit their instruction-following and code-execution capabilities to bypass safety alignments. Attackers can obfuscate malicious queries using a semantic-algorithmic representation, embedding the query within reversible encryption-decryption logic (e.g., sequence re-grouping, conditional branching, or index-dependent operations). By providing the model with the encrypted query and the corresponding…

Leading Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit significant cross-lingual safety drift, allowing users to bypass safety guardrails by translating harmful prompts into low-resource Indic languages. While models effectively block unsafe prompts concerning caste, religion, gender, and politics in high-resource languages like English and Hindi, their safety alignment severely degrades in low-resource scripts such as Odia, Telugu, Kannada, and Punjabi. Evaluated models demonstrate a cross-language…

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…

The integration of the visual modality in Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) introduces a vulnerability where appending an image to a harmful text prompt induces a "jailbreak-related representation shift" in the model's internal high-dimensional space. This shift forcibly steers the model's last-token hidden state away from a designated refusal state and into a distinct jailbreak state. The vulnerability occurs because the visual modality overrides the safety alignment of the underlying…

A vulnerability in multi-step, tool-using Large Language Model (LLM) agents allows attackers to bypass safety guardrails by manipulating user context variables, such as personalization profiles or persistent memory. The safety policies of frontier LLMs are highly context-dependent; inserting innocuous user bios (e.g., demographic or health disclosures) fundamentally alters the agent's action policy. When combined with lightweight adversarial jailbreaks, specific personalization contexts…

A structural vulnerability in the safety alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to bypass guardrails by manipulating when and how malicious intent is reconstructed during inference. This vulnerability, exploited via Structured Semantic Cloaking (S2C), takes advantage of safety mechanisms that rely on the coherent, explicit surface realization of harmful semantics at early generation stages. By structurally fragmenting malicious queries across disjoint prompt segments and…

LLaVA-v1.5-7B, when deployed as a vision-language autonomous agent, is highly vulnerable to adversarial image perturbations. An attacker can inject imperceptibly modified images into a web environment (such as an e-commerce storefront). When the VLM agent captures a screenshot containing the perturbed image, the visual noise forces the model to misclassify the scene and output incorrect, structured JSON actions. This allows an attacker to hijack the agent's task execution, bypassing the user's…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreak technique termed "Priority Hacking." Adversaries can bypass safety alignments by exploiting the model's internal priority graph, where certain abstract values (e.g., justice, public health) implicitly outweigh general safety restrictions within specific contexts. By crafting a deceptive prompt that frames a malicious request as a necessary action in service of a higher-priority benign value, attackers engineer a value conflict. The…

Autoregressive language models are vulnerable to state-dependent safety collapse via structured multi-turn context manipulation. The vulnerability stems from the model treating dialogue history as a state transition operator rather than a passive record. By initializing a conversational trajectory with a semantic-preserving softened query and a query-aware persona containing specific named entities, an attacker can establish "representational anchors" that trigger abrupt phase transitions in…