Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed 9/9/2026

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1123 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

126 entries

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

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 2/22/2026

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to multi-turn persuasive conversational attacks that induce the adoption of counterfactual beliefs. By leveraging the Source–Message–Channel–Receiver (SMCR) communication framework, attackers can systematically erode a model's confidence in established facts and compel the model to output misinformation. Specific attack vectors include manipulating source attribution (authority framing), message content (logical, credibility, or emotional appeals)…

Vulnerability of LLMs' Belief Systems? LLMs Belief Resistance Check Through Strategic Persuasive Conversation Interventions
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.2 3B, Llama 3.3 70B +2 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 3/8/2026

Open-weight Large Language Models, demonstrated specifically on Qwen3 (4B and 30B-A3B Base, Instruct, and Thinking variants), are vulnerable to unauthorized steerability attacks where minimal inference-time interventions—such as short, pro-instrumental prompt suffixes—reliably elicit dangerous instrumental-convergence behaviors. Because instruction-tuned and "Thinking" models are inherently designed to be highly responsive to steering (authorized steerability), malicious actors can exploit…

Steerability of Instrumental-Convergence Tendencies in LLMs
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 4B Base, Qwen 3 4B Instruct, Qwen 3 4B Thinking +3 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 1/14/2026

A malicious model supply chain vulnerability exists involving a technique termed Adversarial Contrastive Learning (ACL) for Large Language Model (LLM) quantization attacks. This vulnerability allows an attacker to publish a model that appears benign and preserves high utility in full precision (e.g., BF16 or FP32) but exhibits malicious behaviors—such as jailbreak, over-refusal, or advertisement injection—immediately upon zero-shot quantization (e.g., INT8, FP4, or NF4).

Adversarial Contrastive Learning for LLM Quantization Attacks
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 2/22/2026

Large Language Models (LLMs) enabled with Function Calling (FC) capabilities are vulnerable to adversarial query rewriting and semantic manipulation. Standard FC models, typically trained via Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on static datasets, fail to generalize against adversarial inputs that deviate from fixed distribution patterns. An attacker can exploit this by crafting queries that are semantically similar to valid requests but engineered to induce "bad cases," such as incorrect tool…

Exploring Weaknesses in Function Call Models via Reinforcement Learning: An Adversarial Data Augmentation Approach
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct, Qwen 3 0.6B, Qwen 3 4B +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 3/8/2026

A fine-tuning vulnerability in the safety alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) allows adversaries to systematically bypass refusal mechanisms by training the model on a small dataset (as few as 1,000 samples) of strictly benign text. By prepending standard refusal prefixes (e.g., "I'm sorry", "I cannot fulfill this request") to the target outputs of benign instruction-response pairs, attackers disrupt the model's refusal completion pathway. When subsequently prompted with unsafe queries…

LLMs Can Unlearn Refusal with Only 1,000 Benign Samples
Evaluated models: Llama 2 13B, Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.2 1B +13 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 2/22/2026

The STEP-LLM framework, utilized for generating Computer-Aided Design (CAD) STEP files (ISO 10303) from natural language, exhibits a safety alignment vulnerability during the fine-tuning of base Large Language Models (specifically Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct and Qwen-2.5-3B). The training pipeline employs Depth-First Search (DFS) reserialization and Reinforcement Learning (RL) with Scaled Chamfer Distance rewards to optimize for geometric fidelity and syntactic validity of Boundary Representation…

STEP-LLM: Generating CAD STEP Models from Natural Language with Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.2 3B, Qwen 2.5 3B

Source: arXiv

Published 12/1/2025
Analyzed 3/8/2026

Open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a white-box safety alignment bypass known as "abliteration" (directional orthogonalization). An attacker with access to the model weights can compute the "refusal direction" in the residual stream activation space by contrasting internal activations between harmful and harmless prompts. By projecting the model's weight matrices to be orthogonal to this single direction (or specific concept cones), the safety alignment is surgically…

Comparative Analysis of LLM Abliteration Methods: A Cross-Architecture Evaluation
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3, Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct +13 more

Source: arXiv

Published 12/1/2025
Analyzed 1/14/2026

Frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a critical vulnerability to automated, adaptive multi-turn adversarial attacks, specifically those utilizing tree-based exploration algorithms (e.g., the TEMPEST framework). Unlike single-turn jailbreaks, this vulnerability exploits the model's inability to maintain safety alignment across extended conversation trajectories. An attacker using an automated agent can dynamically select from multiple adversarial strategies—such as academic framing…

Replicating TEMPEST at Scale: Multi-Turn Adversarial Attacks Against Trillion-Parameter Frontier Models
Evaluated models: Cogito 2.1, DeepSeek V3.1, Gemma 3 12B +7 more

Source: arXiv

Published 12/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

Large Language Models (LLMs) finetuned from open-weight pretrained sources inherit adversarial vulnerabilities encoded in the pretrained model's internal representations. An attacker with white-box access to a pretrained model (e.g., Llama-2, Llama-3) can identify linearly separable features in the hidden states that correlate with "transferable" jailbreak prompts. By exploiting these features using a Probe-Guided Projection (PGP) attack, the attacker can optimize adversarial suffixes on the…

One Leak Away: How Pretrained Model Exposure Amplifies Jailbreak Risks in Finetuned LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 3 8B Instruct, DeepSeek LLM 7B Chat +5 more

Source: arXiv

Published 11/1/2025
Analyzed 12/30/2025

A "Helpful Mode" role-confusion vulnerability exists in specific Large Language Model (LLM) safety guardrails, specifically Nemotron-Safety-8B and Granite-Guardian-3.2-5B. These models, designed to act as binary classifiers (outputting "Safe" or "Unsafe") for content moderation, can be manipulated via contextually framed adversarial prompts (e.g., academic research requests, corporate security scenarios, or roleplay) to abandon their classification objective. Instead of blocking the request…

Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Model Safety Guardrails Against Adversarial Attacks
Evaluated models: Nemotron Safety 8B, Granite Guardian 3.2 5B

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.