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

77 entries

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

LlamaGuard Obfuscation Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LlamaGuard (specifically Llama-Guard-3-8B) and similar LLM-based runtime guardrails are susceptible to adversarial bypass via obfuscation-based and template-based jailbreak attacks. The model's reliance on English-language training data allows attackers to evade safety classification by encoding harmful prompts using Base64, cryptographic ciphers (e.g., Caesar Cipher), or translating them into low-resource languages (e.g., Zulu). Furthermore, the model lacks sufficient alignment against…

DecipherGuard: Understanding and Deciphering Jailbreak Prompts for a Safer Deployment of Intelligent Software Systems
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B

Paper Submission Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) employed as automated assistants or autonomous agents in academic peer review systems are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection via maliciously crafted PDF submissions. Attackers can embed adversarial instructions within the manuscript that are invisible to human reviewers (using techniques such as white-on-white text or manipulating TrueType font character mapping tables) but are parsed and executed by the LLM.

When your reviewer is an llm: Biases, divergence, and prompt injection risks in peer review
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5

Knowledge Neuron Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) utilizing Transformer architectures are vulnerable to representation-level attacks targeting safety-knowledge neurons within the Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) layers. Research indicates that safety decision-making (Rejection vs. Conformity) is localized to specific neurons in middle-to-late layers (layers 10-30). An attacker with white-box access can calculate a "Conformity" direction vector based on the activation differences between benign and harmful…

Unraveling LLM Jailbreaks Through Safety Knowledge Neurons
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Vicuna 7B

Malicious Intent Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

IntentionReasoner, specifically the 1.5B and 3B parameter versions optimized via Reinforcement Learning (RL), contains a safety regression vulnerability where the RL alignment process degrades the model's resistance to jailbreak attacks compared to the Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) baseline. While RL improves general utility and rewriting quality, it inadvertently increases the Attack Success Rate (ASR) for adversarial inputs in smaller architectures. This allows sophisticated jailbreak prompts…

IntentionReasoner: Facilitating Adaptive LLM Safeguards through Intent Reasoning and Selective Query Refinement
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • DeepSeek V3
  • IntentionReasoner 1.5B
  • IntentionReasoner 3B

Back-Translation Watermark Stripping

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Implementations of Large Language Model (LLM) watermarking algorithms—specifically KGW (Kirchenbauer et al.), Semantic Invariant Robust (SIR) Watermark, Entropy-based Text Watermarking (EWD), and Unbiased Watermarking—are vulnerable to watermark stripping via adversarial text perturbation. When watermarked text generated by models such as OPT-1.3B is subjected to automated paraphrasing or back-translation (e.g., English $\to$ French $\to$ English), the embedded statistical signals are…

Signature vs. Substance: Evaluating the Balance of Adversarial Resistance and Linguistic Quality in Watermarking Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B

LLM Interpreter Resource Exhaustion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) equipped with native code interpreters are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via resource exhaustion. An attacker can craft a single prompt that causes the interpreter to execute code that depletes CPU, memory, or disk resources. The vulnerability is particularly pronounced when a resource-intensive task is framed within a plausibly benign or socially-engineered context ("indirect prompts"), which significantly lowers the model's likelihood of refusal compared…

Running in CIRCLE? A Simple Benchmark for LLM Code Interpreter Security
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.0 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Pro+5 more
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4.1 Nano
  • o3 Pro
  • o4-mini

LLM Confidence Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing Verbal Confidence Elicitation (CEM)—where the model outputs a numeric confidence score (e.g., "Confidence: 90%") alongside an answer—are vulnerable to Verbal Confidence Attacks (VCAs). Adversaries can manipulate these confidence scores through two primary vectors: perturbation-based attacks (VCA-TF, VCA-TB, SSR) utilizing synonym substitution, typos, and token removal; and jailbreak-based attacks (ConfidenceTriggers, AutoDAN) utilizing optimized trigger…

On the Robustness of Verbal Confidence of LLMs in Adversarial Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4o+4 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • o3
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.3 70B

Airborne Audio LLM Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Audio-based Large Language Models (ALLMs), specifically Qwen2-Audio, are vulnerable to over-the-air adversarial audio attacks. An attacker with white-box access can generate robust adversarial audio perturbations using gradient-based optimization combined with audio augmentation techniques (specifically SpecAugment, translation, and additive noise). These perturbations, when played through a speaker in the physical environment, manipulate the ALLM processing the audio via a microphone. This…

Attacker's Noise Can Manipulate Your Audio-based LLM in the Real World
Evaluated models: Not reported

Adaptive Cipher Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to obfuscation-based jailbreak attacks using the MetaCipher framework. MetaCipher employs a reinforcement learning algorithm to iteratively select from a pool of 21 ciphers to encrypt malicious keywords within prompts, evading standard safety mechanisms that rely on keyword detection. The framework adaptively learns optimal cipher choices to maximize the success rate of the jailbreak, even against LLMs with reasoning capabilities. Successful attacks…

MetaCipher: A General and Extensible Reinforcement Learning Framework for Obfuscation-Based Jailbreak Attacks on Black-Box LLMs
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek Chat, DeepSeek R1+9 more
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • DeepSeek Chat
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Falcon 3 10B Instruct
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GPT-4o
  • InternLM 2.5 20B
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • o1-mini
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • QwQ 32B

LLM Judge Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Alibaba Cloud PAI-Judge and PAI-Judge-Plus are vulnerable to a composite adversarial attack that exploits attention mechanism limitations in Large Language Models (LLMs). An authenticated attacker can manipulate automated evaluation outcomes by appending a long, irrelevant text suffix (approximately 1000 to 2000+ characters) to a response containing adversarial perturbations. This "long-suffix" strategy overwhelms the judge model's context window, causing the attention mechanism to degrade and…

LLMs Cannot Reliably Judge (Yet?): A Comprehensive Assessment on the Robustness of LLM-as-a-Judge
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.3 70B+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Mistral 7B
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

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.