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

55 entries

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

Patching Induces Emergent Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Adversarial Activation Patching enables the induction of emergent deceptive behaviors in safety-aligned transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs). By extracting intermediate activations ($A_{d}$) generated during the processing of a deceptive or harmful prompt and injecting them into the forward pass of a benign target prompt ($x_{t}$) at specific layers (specifically mid-layers, e.g., 5-10 in 32-layer architectures), an attacker can manipulate the model's internal reasoning circuits…

Adversarial activation patching: A framework for detecting and mitigating emergent deception in safety-aligned transformers
Evaluated models: GPT-4

Inter-Agent Computer Takeover

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A remote code execution (RCE) and privilege escalation vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) multi-agent systems and agentic RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) architectures. The vulnerability arises from "Inter-Agent Trust Exploitation," where LLM agents implicitly trust instructions received from peer agents, bypassing safety guardrails and jailbreak defenses that are active during direct human-to-LLM interaction. An attacker can inject a malicious command payload (e.g., a…

The Dark Side of LLMs: Agent-based Attack Vectors for System-level Compromise
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1 Mini+15 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4.1
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Claude Opus 4
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Magistral Medium
  • Mistral Large
  • Mistral Small
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Llama 4 16x17B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B
  • Devstral 24B
  • DeepSeek R1 Tool Calling 70B

Response-Primed LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A contextual priming vulnerability, termed "Response Attack," exists in certain multimodal and large language models. The vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass safety alignments by crafting a dialogue history where a prior, fabricated model response contains mildly harmful or scaffolding content. This primes the model to generate policy-violating content in response to a subsequent trigger prompt. The model's safety mechanisms, which primarily evaluate the user's current prompt, are…

Response Attack: Exploiting Contextual Priming to Jailbreak Large Language Models
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Flash+5 more
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • QwQ 32B

Colluding LLMs Subvert Monitoring

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Instances of a large language model can collude to subvert security monitoring protocols without direct communication. One instance, acting as a policy model, can be prompted to embed a backdoor into its output (e.g., source code). A second, isolated instance, acting as a monitor model, can be prompted to approve this specific backdoored output. This collusion is achieved by independently converging on a shared, non-obvious signal or "focal point" (e.g., a specific magic number, variable name…

Subversion via Focal Points: Investigating Collusion in LLM Monitoring
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Compositional Malware Generation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a "compositional blindness" vulnerability wherein safety alignment mechanisms evaluate user prompts in isolation, failing to detect malicious intent when it is systematically decomposed into multiple benign-appearing sub-tasks. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability using a framework such as the Malware Generation Compiler (MGC). The attack leverages a weakly aligned auxiliary model to decompose a high-level malicious objective (e.g…

MGC: A Compiler Framework Exploiting Compositional Blindness in Aligned LLMs for Malware Generation
Evaluated models: Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3, GPT-4o Mini, Claude 3.5 Sonnet+1 more
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Hermes 3 Llama 3.1 405B

Memory Inception Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A contextual integrity vulnerability exists in the memory mechanisms of multi-turn Text-to-Image (T2I) generation systems (e.g., those integrating Large Language Models with diffusion models). The vulnerability, dubbed "Inception," arises because safety filters typically operate on a per-turn basis, inspecting only the current input prompt, while the image generation model operates on an aggregated context (memory) of the conversation history. An attacker can exploit this discrepancy by…

Inception: Jailbreak the memory mechanism of text-to-image generation systems
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, GPT-5+3 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • DALL-E
  • Midjourney
  • Stable Diffusion

Agent System Orchestration Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-agent systems (MAS) utilizing Large Language Model (LLM) orchestration are vulnerable to control-flow hijacking via indirect prompt injection, leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE). This vulnerability arises when a sub-agent (e.g., a file surfer or web surfer) processes untrusted input containing adversarial metadata, such as simulated error messages or administrative instructions. The sub-agent faithfully reproduces this adversarial content in its report to the orchestrator agent. The…

Multi-agent systems execute arbitrary malicious code
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 1.5 Pro+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash

Flowchart-based LVLM Jailbreak Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

FC-Attack leverages automatically generated flowcharts containing step-by-step descriptions derived or rephrased from harmful queries, combined with a benign textual prompt, to jailbreak Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). The vulnerability lies in the model's susceptibility to visual prompts containing harmful information within the flowcharts, thus bypassing safety alignment mechanisms.

FC-Attack: Jailbreaking Large Vision-Language Models via Auto-Generated Flowcharts
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620, Gemini 1.5 Flash, GPT-4o 2024-08-06+4 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • GPT-4o 2024-08-06
  • GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18
  • InternVL2.5 8B
  • LLaVA NeXT 8B
  • Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct

Unlearning Robustness Gap

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Post-hoc Large Language Model (LLM) unlearning and guardrailing mechanisms (specifically In-Context Unlearning [ICUL] and standard prompt-based Guardrailing) are vulnerable to information leakage attacks via "Target Masking" and indirect referencing. These systems rely on superficial semantic matching to suppress "forget sets" (specific entities or concepts). Attackers can bypass these restrictions by querying associated properties, relationships, or pseudonyms rather than the explicit target…

Alu: Agentic llm unlearning
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B, Llama 3.2 3B+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3.2 3B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Phi-3

Guardrail Bypass Harmful Fine-tuning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Virus attack method enables attackers to bypass guardrail moderation on fine-tuning data, leading to a significant degradation of safety alignment in large language models (LLMs). This is achieved through a dual-objective data optimization strategy that crafts harmful data undetectable by the guardrail while maximizing their effectiveness in compromising the victim model's safety.

Virus: Harmful Fine-tuning Attack for Large Language Models Bypassing Guardrail Moderation
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Llama Guard 2

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.