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

79 entries

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

CoT Detector Obfuscation Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based code agents and vulnerability detectors employing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning are susceptible to automated adversarial code obfuscation. The vulnerability exists because CoT mechanisms expose the model's decision logic, allowing reinforcement learning frameworks (such as CoTDeceptor) to iteratively refine code transformations based on the detector's own reasoning traces. By optimizing for "reasoning instability" and "hallucination" rather than just syntactic evasion, attackers…

CoTDeceptor: Adversarial Code Obfuscation Against CoT-Enhanced LLM Code Agents
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1, GPT-5

Grafted Experience Drift

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in MetaGPT's DataInterpreter agent (and similar RAG-based agents utilizing persistent long-term memory) that allows for persistent memory poisoning via indirect injection. The vulnerability exploits the agent's "semantic imitation heuristic," where the agent blindly trusts and imitates retrieved past experiences. An attacker can supply a benign-looking artifact (e.g., a README file or documentation) containing executable code blocks or structured text that the agent…

MemoryGraft: Persistent compromise of LLM agents via poisoned experience retrieval
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

GPT Tool Misuse

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in OpenAI's Custom GPTs platform where the lack of effective isolation between the system context ("Expert Prompt"), external knowledge retrieval, and user input allows for unauthorized information disclosure and tool misuse. By employing specific prompt injection techniques—including Hex injection, Many-shot prefix attacks, and Knowledge Poisoning (uploading malicious files)—an attacker can bypass safety guardrails. This results in the extraction of proprietary system…

An Empirical Study on the Security Vulnerabilities of GPTs
Evaluated models: DALL-E

LLM Agent Automates Backdoor Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the fine-tuning process of Large Language Models (LLMs) allows for the automated generation of stealthy backdoor attacks using an autonomous LLM agent. This method, termed AutoBackdoor, creates a pipeline to generate semantically coherent trigger phrases and corresponding poisoned instruction-response pairs. Unlike traditional backdoor attacks that rely on fixed, often anomalous triggers, this technique produces natural language triggers that are contextually relevant and…

AutoBackdoor: Automating Backdoor Attacks via LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3
  • Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Black-Box Fine-Tuning Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) fine-tuning interfaces are vulnerable to a semantic obfuscation attack that bypasses multi-stage safety defenses, including pre-upload data filtering, defensive fine-tuning algorithms, and post-training safety audits. The vulnerability exploits a "self-auditing" flaw where the provider uses the target model (or a similar variant) to screen training data. Attackers can submit a small dataset (approx. 500 samples) where harmful answers are obfuscated using a…

Fine-Tuning Jailbreaks under Highly Constrained Black-Box Settings: A Three-Pronged Approach
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4o Mini+5 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Gemma 1.1 7B IT
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Claude Sonnet 4

Self-Amplifying Memory Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing long-term memory or Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) are vulnerable to context-dependent memory injection attacks. Unlike traditional prompt injections that are overtly malicious, this vulnerability involves injecting records that appear benign and coherent in isolation—thereby bypassing standard perplexity filters and static content moderation (e.g., LlamaGuard). These records contain "sleeping" malicious logic that is only activated when…

A-memguard: A proactive defense framework for llm-based agent memory
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B

Adversarial RAG Context Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems in the health domain are vulnerable to corpus poisoning attacks where adversarial documents—specifically those generated via "Liar" (fabricated from scratch based on an incorrect stance) and "Few-Shot Adversarial Prompting" (FSAP)—are injected into the retrieval pool. When these adversarial documents are retrieved and presented as context, they successfully override the Large Language Model's (LLM) internal safety alignment and ground-truth…

Evaluating the Robustness of Retrieval-Augmented Generation to Adversarial Evidence in the Health Domain
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-5, Claude 3.5 Haiku+3 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-5
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 32B
  • Phi-4
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct

Prompt Injection Alignment Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated with external retrieval mechanisms (e.g., Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), web search, or email processing) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection. This vulnerability occurs when an LLM consumes input from untrusted external sources—such as websites, code repositories, or incoming emails—that contain embedded adversarial prompts. Unlike direct injection, where the user attacks the model, here the "poisoned" data is retrieved by the system…

Breaking to Build: A Threat Model of Prompt-Based Attacks for Securing LLMs
Evaluated models: Not reported

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

Deceptive CoT Rationalization

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Chain-of-Thought (CoT) monitoring protocols where trusted monitor models can be deceived by deceptive reasoning traces generated by untrusted models. Specifically, when an untrusted model employs a "Dependency" framing attack—characterizing a malicious side-task as a necessary intermediate calculation or benign prerequisite—the monitor's suspicion score significantly decreases compared to action-only monitoring. This creates a paradox where providing the monitor with…

CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Haiku, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, GPT-4.1 Mini+3 more
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4.1 Nano
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking

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.