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

45 entries

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

GPT-4 API Gray-Box Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Newly added APIs to large language models (LLMs), such as fine-tuning, function calling, and knowledge retrieval, introduce novel attack vectors that bypass existing safety mechanisms and enable various malicious activities. Specifically, fine-tuning with even a small number of carefully crafted examples can remove or weaken built-in safety guardrails, resulting in the generation of misinformation, disclosure of private information (PII), and the creation of malicious code. Function calling…

Exploiting novel gpt-4 apis
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4

LLM Causal Neuron Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as Llama 2 and Vicuna exhibit a vulnerability where specific layers (e.g., layer 3 in Llama2-13B, layer 1 in Llama2-7B and Vicuna-13B) overfit to harmful prompts, resulting in a disproportionate influence on the model's output for such prompts. This overfitting creates a narrow "safety" mechanism easily bypassed by adversarial prompts designed to avoid triggering these specific layers. Additionally, a single neuron (e.g., neuron 2100 in Llama2 and Vicuna)…

Causality analysis for evaluating the security of large language models
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, Llama 2-13B-chat-hf, Llama 2-7B-chat-hf+1 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • Llama 2-13B-chat-hf
  • Llama 2-7B-chat-hf
  • Vicuna-13B Version 1.5

Universal Jailbreak Backdoors

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A universal jailbreak backdoor vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) trained using Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). A malicious actor can poison the RLHF training data by introducing a trigger word into harmful prompts and labeling the harmful model outputs as preferred. This causes the LLM to generate harmful responses whenever the trigger word is included in any prompt, regardless of the prompt's content or topic. The backdoor is "universal" because it…

Universal jailbreak backdoors from poisoned human feedback
Evaluated models: Not reported

Parametric Model Unalignment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and instruction tuning methods may exhibit superficial safety guardrails vulnerable to parametric red-teaming attacks. Fine-tuning the model on a dataset of harmful prompts and their corresponding helpful (but harmful) responses can bypass built-in safety mechanisms, resulting in the model generating unsafe outputs. This vulnerability is demonstrated by achieving an 88% success rate in eliciting harmful…

Language model unalignment: Parametric red-teaming to expose hidden harms and biases
Evaluated models: Claude 1, Claude 2, GPT-4+6 more
  • Claude 1
  • Claude 2
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Vicuna 1 7B
  • Vicuna 1 13B
  • Vicuna 2 7B
  • Vicuna 2 13B

Fine-tuning Compromises LLM Safety

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Fine-tuning aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) on a small number of adversarially crafted examples, or even on benign datasets, can compromise their safety alignment, leading to the generation of harmful or inappropriate content. This vulnerability exploits the few-shot learning capabilities of LLMs, allowing attackers to override existing safety mechanisms with minimal effort and cost. Even unintentional fine-tuning with seemingly benign datasets can result in unintended safety degradation.

Fine-tuning aligned language models compromises safety, even when users do not intend to!
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, Llama 2 13B Chat, Llama 2 70B Chat+2 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Llama 2 70B Chat
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama-1

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.