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

609 entries

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

MedMMLM Cross-Modality Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Medical Multimodal Large Language Models (MedMLLMs) are vulnerable to cross-modality attacks. Attackers can craft "mismatched malicious attacks" (2M-attacks) by providing MedMLLMs with image-text pairs where the image modality and/or anatomical region do not match the textual query, causing the model to generate incorrect or harmful responses. These attacks can be further optimized ("optimized mismatched malicious attacks"—O2M-attacks) using multimodal cross-optimization (MCM) techniques to…

Cross-Modality Jailbreak and Mismatched Attacks on Medical Multimodal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: CheXagent, LLaVA Med, Med-Flamingo+2 more
  • CheXagent
  • LLaVA Med
  • Med-Flamingo
  • RadFM
  • XrayGLM

Visual Role-Play Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to a universal jailbreak attack, termed Visual Role-Play (VRP), which leverages role-playing image characters to elicit harmful responses. VRP generates images depicting high-risk characters (e.g., cybercriminals) described by an LLM, paired with a benign role-play instruction and a malicious query. This combined input tricks the MLLM into generating malicious content by enacting the character's persona.

Visual-RolePlay: Universal Jailbreak Attack on MultiModal Large Language Models via Role-playing Image Characte
Evaluated models: Gemini 1.0 Pro Vision, Internvlchat-v1.5, LLaVA 1.6 Mistral 7B+4 more
  • Gemini 1.0 Pro Vision
  • Internvlchat-v1.5
  • LLaVA 1.6 Mistral 7B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Omnilmm (12B)
  • Qwen-vl-chat (7B)
  • Stable Diffusion

WordGame LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a novel jailbreaking attack, "WordGame," which leverages simultaneous query and response obfuscation to bypass safety mechanisms. The attack replaces malicious words with word games in the query, forcing the LLM to reason through the game before addressing the original malicious intent. This, coupled with auxiliary tasks or questions (WordGame+), creates a context absent in the LLM's safety training data, enabling the generation of harmful content.

WordGame: Efficient & Effective LLM Jailbreak via Simultaneous Obfuscation in Query and Response
Evaluated models: Gemini Pro, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4

Self-Explanatory LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in large language models (LLMs) allows for near-perfect jailbreaking via iterative prompt refinement and self-explanation. The attacker uses the LLM itself to iteratively refine adversarial prompts by requesting self-explanations of failed attempts, ultimately generating prompts that bypass safety mechanisms and elicit harmful content. A subsequent "Rate+Enhance" step further maximizes the harmfulness of the generated output.

GPT-4 Jailbreaks Itself with Near-Perfect Success Using Self-Explanation
Evaluated models: Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3 Sonnet, GPT-4+5 more
  • Claude 3 Opus
  • Claude 3 Sonnet
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Llama 3.1 8B

Adaptive Sparse Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in several open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) allows for efficient jailbreaking via Adaptive Dense-to-Sparse Constrained Optimization (ADC). This attack uses a continuous optimization method, progressively increasing sparsity to generate adversarial token sequences that bypass safety measures and elicit harmful responses. The attack is more effective and efficient than prior token-level methods.

Efficient LLM Jailbreak via Adaptive Dense-to-sparse Constrained Optimization
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, Llama2-chat-7B+3 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Llama2-chat-7B
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5
  • Zephyr 7B Beta
  • Zephyr 7B R2D2

Adversarial Speech Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (LLMs) processing speech input are vulnerable to adversarial attacks. Imperceptible perturbations added to audio input can cause the model to generate unsafe or harmful text responses, overriding built-in safety mechanisms. The attacks are effective even with limited knowledge of the model's internal workings, demonstrating transferability across different models.

SpeechGuard: Exploring the adversarial robustness of multimodal large language models
Evaluated models: Flan-T5 XL, Llama 7B, Llama 2 13B Chat+2 more
  • Flan-T5 XL
  • Llama 7B
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Mistral 7B Instruct
  • SpeechGPT

Multi-turn Semantic Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in large language models (LLMs) allows attackers to elicit unsafe or unethical responses through a chain of semantically relevant multi-turn prompts. The attack, termed "Chain of Attack" (CoA), exploits the model's contextual understanding and adaptive response capabilities to gradually steer the conversation towards the desired harmful output, even if single-turn prompts are rejected due to safety mechanisms. The attack leverages semantic similarity scoring (e.g., using…

Chain of attack: a semantic-driven contextual multi-turn attacker for llm
Evaluated models: Baichuan 2 7B Chat, ChatGLM2 6B, GPT-3.5 Turbo+2 more
  • Baichuan 2 7B Chat
  • ChatGLM2 6B
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Vicuna 13B v1.5

LLM Intent Obfuscation Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit vulnerabilities when processing complex or ambiguous prompts containing malicious intent. The vulnerability arises from the LLMs' inability to consistently detect maliciousness when prompts are obfuscated by either splitting a single malicious query into multiple parts or by directly modifying the malicious content to increase ambiguity. This allows attackers to bypass built-in safety mechanisms and elicit harmful or restricted content.

Can LLMs Deeply Detect Complex Malicious Queries? A Framework for Jailbreaking via Obfuscating Intent
Evaluated models: Baichuan 2 13B Chat, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4+1 more
  • Baichuan 2 13B Chat
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Qwen Max

LLM Refusal Suppression Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks that exploit their tendency to refuse harmful requests. The "Don't Say No" (DSN) attack overcomes this refusal mechanism by optimizing prompts to suppress negative responses, increasing the likelihood of generating harmful content. This is achieved by modifying the loss function during adversarial prompt optimization, prioritizing the suppression of refusal keywords over the elicitation of affirmative responses. The attack…

Don't Say No: Jailbreaking LLM by Suppressing Refusal
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4

Fast Adaptive LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to adversarial prompting attacks, where a crafted suffix appended to an instruction causes the LLM to generate unsafe or harmful content. The AdvPrompter technique trains a separate LLM to generate these adversarial suffixes, rapidly bypassing LLM safety mechanisms. The generated suffixes are human-readable and contextually relevant, making them harder to detect than previous methods. The attack is effective against both open-source and closed-source…

Advprompter: Fast adaptive adversarial prompting for llms
Evaluated models: Falcon 7B Instruct, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4+6 more
  • Falcon 7B Instruct
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Mistral 7B Instruct
  • Pythia-12B-chat
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5
  • Vicuna 13B v1.5

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.