Language Model Security Database

Frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) contain a safeguard bypass vulnerability where safety filters fail to reliably block requests for dual-use, in silico biology tasks. This allows novice users with no specialized training to access restricted, expert-level biological protocols (e.g., virology troubleshooting, pathogen capabilities, novel biological agent construction). The models' safety mechanisms fail to trigger or are trivially bypassed under realistic extended interaction conditions…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to safety alignment bypasses via classical and obscure language contexts, most notably Classical Chinese, Latin, and Sanskrit. This vulnerability stems from a "High Capability-Low Alignment" distribution shift: models possess sophisticated semantic comprehension of historical languages due to extensive pre-training on historical archives and literature, but lack corresponding safety guardrails which are predominantly optimized for modern languages…

A vulnerability in the multi-turn context handling of Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety guardrails by decomposing complex fraud and cybercrime operations into a sequence of seemingly benign queries. By mapping the cybercrime lifecycle (planning, reconnaissance, falsification, engagement, evasion, and scaling) into Long-Form Tasks (LFTs) and framing the queries as legitimate research or security testing, attackers can elicit actionable attack materials and detailed…

Multiple open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) in the 1B to 7B parameter range are vulnerable to safety bypasses via long-form, multi-step reasoning prompt injection and jailbreak attacks. Attackers can evade alignment by embedding malicious instructions within extended contextual narratives, exploiting "attention dilution" and the models' tendency to prioritize contextual coherence over safety constraints (semantic camouflage). These reasoning-heavy attacks consistently bypass standard…

LLM-based Code Interpreter Agents, including OpenInterpreter and OpenCodeInterpreter, are vulnerable to sandbox evasion and arbitrary code execution via Natural Language Disguise and Contextual Channel Injection. Attackers can bypass Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) static analysis and explicit input guardrails by transforming malicious code logic into descriptive natural language instructions (Code Descriptions), which successfully evade syntax-layer blocks. Additionally, attackers can bypass input…

LLM-based security advisors exhibit systematic reasoning failures—including boundary confusion, attestation overclaiming, and mitigation hallucination—when providing architectural guidance for Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) like Intel SGX and Arm TrustZone. When embedded in tool-augmented agent pipelines, these models are susceptible to agentic misinterpretation, turning partial or poisoned tool outputs into highly confident but materially incorrect security conclusions. This…

LLM agents with tool-calling capabilities are vulnerable to a text-action modality divergence (termed the "GAP" vulnerability), where text-level safety alignment fails to transfer to tool-call execution. Attackers can craft adversarial prompts that cause the model to generate a text-based refusal (demonstrating text safety) while simultaneously executing the requested forbidden action through available external tools. Because text generation and tool-call selection operate through partially…

Multiple large language models are vulnerable to cross-lingual and orthographic jailbreaks utilizing South Asian (Indic) languages. Attackers can bypass safety alignment and elicit harmful content by formulating requests in native Indic scripts (e.g., Bengali, Odia, Urdu) or by utilizing cross-lingual transfer attacks where English adversarial wrappers (format or instruction overrides) encapsulate Indic-language targets. Evaluations reveal a severe "contract gap": while imposing strict JSON…

LLM-based document re-rankers utilizing decoder-only and Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures are vulnerable to candidate-embedded prompt injections during multi-document comparison tasks. By embedding Decision Objective Hijacking (DOH) or Decision Criteria Hijacking (DCH) prompts into candidate documents, attackers can manipulate the model's preference to artificially elevate an injected document to the top rank. The vulnerability exploits the models' instruction-following capabilities and…

LLM agents equipped with tool-use, persistent memory, and environmental interaction capabilities are vulnerable to long-horizon attacks. Attackers can bypass single-turn safety guardrails by exploiting the temporal dimension of multi-turn interactions to incrementally steer agent behavior. The vulnerability manifests because the agent's safety mechanisms perform localized, single-step evaluations but fail to maintain semantic safety across extended interaction trajectories. This enables…