Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Updated 7/21/2026, database is current

Language Model Security Database

959 research findings · 1077 evaluated models

Latest research findings

959 entries

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

Updated 4/10/2026

Inference-time Personally Identifiable Information (PII) leakage is significantly amplified when using Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting or reasoning-enabled Large Language Models (LLMs). When an attacker or user elicits step-by-step reasoning or utilizes models with native "thinking" token budgets, sensitive context data provided in the prompt is directly resurfaced into intermediate reasoning steps or the final output. This bypasses output-level privacy policies instructing the model not to…

Safer Reasoning Traces: Measuring and Mitigating Chain-of-Thought Leakage in LLMs
Affects: DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B, Llama 3.3 70B, Mixtral 8x22B +3 more

Source: arXiv

A compositional vulnerability in modular Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety alignment by distributing malicious weight updates across multiple Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) adapters (e.g., LoRA). The malicious adapters are anchored to valid functional subspaces (e.g., math, coding) and exhibit benign behavior when evaluated in isolation, successfully evading standard unit-centric safety scans and static weight-space defenses. However, when a user linearly…

Colluding LoRA: A Composite Attack on LLM Safety Alignment
Affects: Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B, Gemma 2 2B

Source: arXiv

An "in-content harm" vulnerability exists in safety-aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) where task-level alignment mechanisms fail to evaluate the safety of user-provided external data. Attackers can bypass safety guardrails by embedding policy-violating text (e.g., violence, self-harm, explicit content) within the payload of a seemingly benign, policy-compliant task (e.g., translation, summarization, grammar polishing). Because the primary instruction is harmless, the LLM's safety filters…

Understanding LLM Behavior When Encountering User-Supplied Harmful Content in Harmless Tasks
Affects: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-5.2 +6 more

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreak technique termed "Priority Hacking." Adversaries can bypass safety alignments by exploiting the model's internal priority graph, where certain abstract values (e.g., justice, public health) implicitly outweigh general safety restrictions within specific contexts. By crafting a deceptive prompt that frames a malicious request as a necessary action in service of a higher-priority benign value, attackers engineer a value conflict. The…

Are Dilemmas and Conflicts in LLM Alignment Solvable? A View from Priority Graph

Source: arXiv

Leading Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit significant cross-lingual safety drift, allowing users to bypass safety guardrails by translating harmful prompts into low-resource Indic languages. While models effectively block unsafe prompts concerning caste, religion, gender, and politics in high-resource languages like English and Hindi, their safety alignment severely degrades in low-resource scripts such as Odia, Telugu, Kannada, and Punjabi. Evaluated models demonstrate a cross-language…

IndicSafe: A Benchmark for Evaluating Multilingual LLM Safety in South Asia
Affects: GPT-4o Mini, Claude Sonnet 4, Grok 3 +6 more

Source: arXiv

An activation-steering vulnerability in open-weights Large Language Models allows attackers to bypass safety guardrails by injecting targeted additive perturbations into deep, safety-critical attention heads. The exploit, termed Safety Attention Head Attack (SAHA), utilizes Ablation-Impact Ranking (AIR) to isolate specific attention heads that causally govern safety refusals. By applying Layer-Wise Perturbations (LWP) derived from the linearized decision boundary of a latent safety probe, an…

Depth Charge: Jailbreak Large Language Models from Deep Safety Attention Heads
Affects: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, DeepSeek LLM 7B Chat, Qwen 1.5 7B Chat

Source: arXiv

Updated 3/8/2026

Safety-aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a "Defensive Refusal Bias" vulnerability, resulting in a safety-induced denial-of-service for legitimate cybersecurity operations. The models systematically refuse authorized defensive queries when they contain security-sensitive terminology (e.g., "exploit," "payload," "shell") because current alignment mechanisms rely on semantic similarity to harmful training data rather than intent analysis. Paradoxically, explicit authorization signals…

Defensive Refusal Bias: How Safety Alignment Fails Cyber Defenders
Affects: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Source: arXiv

Updated 4/10/2026

A prompt structure vulnerability exists in instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) where attackers can bypass safety alignments by injecting a continuation-triggering suffix immediately following the user prompt termination token. By placing an affirmative suffix outside the user instruction boundary, it is processed as the beginning of the assistant's own pre-filled response. This structural manipulation intrinsically overactivates the model's continuation attention heads, forcing its…

The Struggle Between Continuation and Refusal: A Mechanistic Analysis of the Continuation-Triggered Jailbreak in LLMs
Affects: Llama 2 7B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Source: arXiv

Embodied Large Language Models (LLMs) used for real-world agent planning are vulnerable to Action-level Manipulation (dubbed "Blindfold"), a jailbreak technique that bypasses semantic-level safety filters by exploiting the models' limited spatial and causal reasoning regarding physical consequences. Attackers can use an adversarial proxy LLM to decompose a semantically harmful intent into a sequence of individually benign primitive actions. To evade advanced semantic correlation checks…

Jailbreaking Embodied LLMs via Action-level Manipulation
Affects: GPT-4o, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o Mini +5 more

Source: arXiv

Internal Safety Collapse (ISC) is a vulnerability in frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) where models autonomously generate highly restricted, harmful content while executing structurally legitimate professional workflows. The vulnerability triggers when a model infers that generating sensitive data is a functional requirement to complete an otherwise benign task. By nesting harmful content generation inside standard execution constraints (e.g., resolving a schema validation error in a…

Internal Safety Collapse in Frontier Large Language Models
Affects: Gemini 3 Pro, Grok 4.1 Fast, Claude Sonnet 4.5 +1 more

Source: arXiv

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.