Language Model Security Database

A vulnerability exists in aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) where inducing "drunk language" behavior—simulating the text of an intoxicated human—bypasses safety guardrails and contextual privacy protections. Attackers can exploit this anthropomorphic flaw through inference-time persona prompting or lightweight post-training (causal fine-tuning or reinforcement learning on drunk text corpora). By forcing the model to adopt a stylistic and semantic framework associated with impaired human…

Improper input validation in Large Language Model (LLM) integrated Algorithmic Trading Systems (ATS) allows remote attackers to manipulate trading decisions via crafted "adversarial news" headlines. The vulnerability exists when ATS pipelines ingest financial news data via standard scraping libraries (e.g., Scrapy, BeautifulSoup, Cheerio) and pass raw HTML or non-normalized text directly to LLMs (such as FinBERT, FinGPT, or GPT-4) for entity recognition (stock-name association) and sentiment…

The STEP-LLM framework, utilized for generating Computer-Aided Design (CAD) STEP files (ISO 10303) from natural language, exhibits a safety alignment vulnerability during the fine-tuning of base Large Language Models (specifically Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct and Qwen-2.5-3B). The training pipeline employs Depth-First Search (DFS) reserialization and Reinforcement Learning (RL) with Scaled Chamfer Distance rewards to optimize for geometric fidelity and syntactic validity of Boundary Representation…

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) Fine-tuning-as-a-Service (FaaS) platforms that allows attackers to bypass safety alignment and moderation filters via a "TrojanPraise" benign fine-tuning attack. The attack exploits the decoupling of an LLM's internal representation of harmful queries into "knowledge" (semantic understanding) and "attitude" (safety refusal). The attacker constructs a fine-tuning dataset containing three specific components: (1) a novel nonsense word (e.g…

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) employing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) generation are vulnerable to sensitive information leakage through intermediate reasoning steps, even after undergoing standard unlearning procedures (such as Gradient Ascent, Direct Preference Optimization, or KL Minimization). While these fine-tuning-based unlearning methods typically suppress sensitive content in the final generated answer, they fail to purge the information from the model's internal reasoning trajectory…

State-of-the-art secure code generation methods (Sven, SafeCoder, and PromSec) are vulnerable to adversarial prompt perturbations during inference, allowing for the bypass of security alignment mechanisms. The vulnerability stems from the models' reliance on surface-level textual pattern matching rather than semantic security reasoning. By employing simple prompt manipulations—such as Cue Inversion (flipping security directives), Naturalness Reframing (rewriting comments as novice questions)…

A fundamental algorithmic limitation exists in purely token-level multi-LLM collaboration systems (such as the "Collab" framework or routing-only variants of FusionRoute) that rely solely on selecting fixed expert outputs without complementary generation. The vulnerability, formally defined as an Identifiability Failure in Token-Level Routing, arises because observing optimal state-action values ($Q^$) along trajectories is insufficient to uniquely identify the specific expert action required…

OpenAI GPT-4o is vulnerable to a targeted persuasion attack where the model acts as an active advocate for conspiracy theories. Standard safety guardrails do not prevent the model from generating specious, invented, or misleading arguments to successfully increase user belief in false claims (a "bunking" attack). Additionally, when explicitly constrained by system prompts to use only truthful information, the model adapts by "paltering"—strategically omitting context, juxtaposing true claims…

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) and Large Reasoning Model (LRM) serving interfaces that allow user-defined response prefixes, such as plain text-completion (v1/completions), Fill-in-the-Middle (FIM), or assistant message prefilling. An attacker can perform a Response Prefix Attack (RPA) by injecting maliciously crafted Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning tokens immediately following the assistant's start delimiter (e.g., <|im_start|>assistant). Because these tokens are placed…

Backdoor-based fingerprinting mechanisms used for Intellectual Property (IP) protection in Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to evasion when deployed in model ensemble configurations. The vulnerability arises because fingerprint triggers elicit specific, high-probability tokens or responses in a protected model that are statistically improbable in unprotected or differently-fingerprinted auxiliary models. Attackers can exploit this statistical discrepancy without accessing model…