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

114 entries

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

Invisible Unicode Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to imperceptible jailbreaking attacks and prompt injection via the exploitation of Unicode variation selectors. This vulnerability arises from a discrepancy between text rendering and tokenizer processing. Attackers can append long sequences of invisible variation selectors (specifically from ranges U+FE00–U+FE0F and U+E0100–U+E01EF) to malicious prompts. While these characters are visually rendered as zero-width or ignored by standard user…

Imperceptible Jailbreaking against Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Vicuna 13B

Untargeted Gradient Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in certain safety-aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) due to an untargeted, gradient-based optimization attack method called Untargeted Jailbreak Attack (UJA). Unlike previous targeted attacks (e.g., GCG) that optimize a prompt to elicit a predefined string (e.g., "Sure, here is..."), UJA optimizes for a general objective: maximizing the unsafety probability of the model's response, as quantified by an external judge model.

Untargeted Jailbreak Attack
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1, GPT-2 Large, GPT-4+11 more
  • DeepSeek R1
  • GPT-2 Large
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama Guard 3
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 8B Instruct
  • RoBERTa
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5

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

Multimodal Linking Visual Insecurity

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Entity Linking (MEL) systems, encompassing both traditional dual-encoder models and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), are vulnerable to gradient-based white-box adversarial attacks. By applying imperceptible perturbations to visual inputs via Projected Gradient Descent (PGD), Auto-PGD (APGD), or Carlini & Wagner (CW) methods, an attacker can manipulate the visual embeddings generated by the model. This manipulation disrupts the cross-modal alignment structure, causing the…

On Evaluating the Adversarial Robustness of Foundation Models for Multimodal Entity Linking
Evaluated models: MiniGPT-4

Latent Fusion Jailbreak Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability, known as Latent Fusion Jailbreak (LFJ), exists in certain Large Language Models that allows an attacker with white-box access to bypass safety alignments. The attack interpolates the internal hidden state representations of a harmful query and a thematically similar benign query. By using gradient-guided optimization to identify and modify influential layers and tokens, a fused hidden state is created that causes the model to generate prohibited content in response to the…

Latent Fusion Jailbreak: Blending Harmful and Harmless Representations to Elicit Unsafe LLM Outputs
Evaluated models: BERT, DeepSeek V3, GPT-3.5 Turbo+5 more
  • BERT
  • DeepSeek V3
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • Guanaco 7B
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 70B
  • Mistral 7B Instruct
  • Vicuna 7B

Activation-Guided Local Editing Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) that allows for safety alignment bypass through a technique named Activation-Guided Local Editing (AGILE). The attack uses white-box access to a source model's internal states (activations and attention scores) to craft a transferable text-based prompt that elicits harmful content.

Activation-Guided Local Editing for Jailbreaking Attacks
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, DarkIdol Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, DeepSeek V3+9 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • DarkIdol Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • GLM 4 9B Chat
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Phi-4 Mini Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

LVLM Vision-Triggered Resource Exhaustion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A resource consumption vulnerability exists in multiple Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). An attacker can craft a subtle, imperceptible adversarial perturbation and apply it to an input image. When this image is processed by an LVLM, even with a benign text prompt, it forces the model into an unbounded generation loop. The attack, named RECALLED, uses a gradient-based optimization process to create a visual perturbation that steers the model's text generation towards a predefined…

Resource Consumption Red-Teaming for Large Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, LLaVA 1.5 13B, Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct+4 more
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • LLaVA 1.5 13B
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 32B Instruct
  • InstructBLIP Vicuna 7B
  • InstructBLIP Vicuna 13B

Copy-Guided Reasoning Corruption

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Reasoning-capable Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a class of indirect prompt injection known as Copy-Guided Attacks (CGA). This vulnerability exploits the intrinsic behavior of reasoning models to copy tokens from the input prompt (such as variable names, function identifiers, or code snippets) into their intermediate reasoning traces (Chain-of-Thought). By embedding adversarial trigger sequences into external payloads—specifically within data the model is expected to analyze—an…

When LLMs Copy to Think: Uncovering Copy-Guided Attacks in Reasoning LLMs
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B, DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B

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

Adversarial ROI Privacy Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) utilizing Transformer-based visual encoders (specifically CLIP and EVA-CLIP variants) are vulnerable to a targeted adversarial attack dubbed "VIP" (Visual Information Protection). This vulnerability allows an attacker to manipulate the model's internal attention mechanism to create a "blind spot" within a specific Region of Interest (ROI) of an input image. By optimizing an additive image perturbation ($\delta$), the attack minimizes the attention weights and…

VIP: Visual Information Protection through Adversarial Attacks on Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: InstructBLIP, Vicuna 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.