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

57 entries

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

Adversarial Unlearning Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing gradient-ascent based unlearning methods are vulnerable to a dynamic unlearning attack (DUA). DUA leverages optimized adversarial suffixes appended to prompts, reintroducing unlearned knowledge even without access to the unlearned model's parameters. This allows an attacker to recover sensitive information previously designated for removal.

Towards robust knowledge unlearning: An adversarial framework for assessing and improving unlearning robustness in large language models
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 3 8B Instruct, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

LCCT Data Extraction & Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM)-based Code Completion Tools (LCCTs), such as GitHub Copilot and Amazon Q, are vulnerable to jailbreaking and training data extraction attacks due to their unique workflows and reliance on proprietary code datasets. Jailbreaking attacks exploit the LLM's ability to generate harmful content by embedding malicious prompts within various code components (filenames, comments, variable names, function calls). Training data extraction attacks leverage the LLM's tendency to…

Security Attacks on LLM-based Code Completion Tools
Evaluated models: GPT 3.5-turbo-0125, GPT-4 Turbo-2024-04-09, GPT-4o-2024-05-13

Synthetic LLM Jailbreak Dataset

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks leveraging synthetically generated prompts. A novel pipeline, SAGE-RT, generates a diverse dataset of 51,000 prompt-response pairs designed to exploit LLMs' vulnerabilities across various categories of harmfulness. These prompts successfully jailbreak state-of-the-art LLMs in a significant percentage of tested sub-categories, including 100% of macro-categories for certain models like GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-turbo. The vulnerability…

Sage-rt: Synthetic alignment data generation for safety evaluation and red teaming
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemma 7B IT, GPT-3.5 Turbo+8 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Gemma 7B IT
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 70B Chat
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct

GCG Suffix Data Exfiltration

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A Cross-Prompt Injection Attack (XPIA) can be amplified by appending a Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) suffix to the malicious injection. This increases the likelihood that a Large Language Model (LLM) will execute the injected instruction, even in the presence of a user's primary instruction, leading to data exfiltration. The success rate of the attack depends on the LLM's complexity; medium-complexity models show increased vulnerability.

WHITE PAPER: A Brief Exploration of Data Exfiltration using GCG Suffixes
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, Phi 3 Mini

Hidden-Intent LLM Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to adversarial attacks that employ conversation strategies to elicit harmful information through seemingly benign dialogues. The attack, termed "Imposter.AI," leverages three key strategies: (1) decomposing malicious questions into innocuous sub-questions; (2) rephrasing overtly malicious questions into benign-sounding alternatives; and (3) enhancing the harmfulness of responses by prompting the LLM for illustrative examples. This allows attackers to…

Imposter. ai: Adversarial attacks with hidden intentions towards aligned large language models
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, Llama 2 13B+1 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 2 13B
  • WizardLM 13B

Direct Parameter Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in large language models (LLMs) where a small subset of parameters can be directly edited to significantly alter the model's behavior, such as inducing or suppressing toxicity, jailbreaking susceptibility, or altering sentiment expression. This manipulation is achieved through training a linear classifier ("behavior probe") to identify parameters strongly correlated with the target behavior and then modifying those parameters, bypassing standard retraining methods.

Model Surgery: Modulating LLM's Behavior Via Simple Parameter Editing
Evaluated models: Code Llama 7B, Llama 2 7B, Llama 2 7B Chat+1 more
  • Code Llama 7B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Mistral 7B

Progressive Red Teaming Framework

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Automated Progressive Red Teaming (APRT) framework exploits vulnerabilities in large language models (LLMs) by iteratively generating adversarial prompts. APRT uses an Intention Expanding LLM to generate diverse initial attack samples, an Intention Hiding LLM to obfuscate malicious intent, and an Evil Maker to filter ineffective prompts. This process progressively identifies and exploits weaknesses, leading to the generation of unsafe yet seemingly helpful responses from the target LLM.

Automated progressive red teaming
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B Chat+5 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama Guard 3 8B
  • UltraLM 13B
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5

Thousand-Leak Information Leakage

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large language models (LLMs) employing safety measures like filters and alignment training remain vulnerable to information leakage via "Decomposition Attacks". These attacks decompose a malicious query into multiple benign sub-queries, eliciting responses from the LLM that, when aggregated, reveal sensitive information without triggering safety filters or producing directly harmful outputs.

Breach By A Thousand Leaks: Unsafe Information Leakage in 'Safe' AI Responses
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Llama Guard 3 8B

Model Combination Misuse

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLMs, even when individually assessed as "safe," can be combined by an adversary to achieve malicious outcomes. This vulnerability exploits the complementary strengths of multiple models—a high-capability model that refuses malicious requests and a low-capability model that does not—through task decomposition. Adversaries can either manually decompose tasks into benign (solved by the high-capability model) and easily-malicious subtasks (solved by the low-capability model) or automate the…

Adversaries can misuse combinations of safe models
Evaluated models: Claude 3 Haiku, Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3 Sonnet+8 more
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • Claude 3 Opus
  • Claude 3 Sonnet
  • DALL-E 3
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Llama 2 70B Chat
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Mistral 7B
  • Mixtral 8x7B
  • Stable Diffusion v1.5

LLM Copyright Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to prompt injection attacks that can bypass their internal copyright compliance mechanisms, causing them to generate verbatim copyrighted text. The vulnerability stems from insufficient robustness against prompt engineering techniques that manipulate the model into ignoring or circumventing its safety filters designed for copyright protection.

SHIELD: Evaluation and Defense Strategies for Copyright Compliance in LLM Text Generation
Evaluated models: Claude 3 Haiku, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini Pro+5 more
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini Pro
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct

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.