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

80 entries

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

Emergent Agentic Vulnerabilities

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

GPT-OSS-20B exhibits "agentic-only" vulnerabilities where safety guardrails effective in standalone model inference fail when the model operates within an agentic execution loop. These vulnerabilities emerge when the model is deployed in a multi-step agentic architecture (e.g., utilizing LangGraph, tool usage, and memory retention). Attackers can bypass safety filters by employing context-aware iterative refinement attacks, which incorporate the full agentic state—including tool outputs…

Mind the Gap: Comparing Model-vs Agentic-Level Red Teaming with Action-Graph Observability on GPT-OSS-20B
Evaluated models: Not reported

Physical Agent Object Misdirection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

AdvEDM reveals a vulnerability in Vision-Language Model (VLM) based Embodied Decision-Making (EDM) systems, such as those used in autonomous driving and robotic manipulation. The vulnerability allows an attacker to launch fine-grained adversarial attacks that selectively modify the perception of specific objects in an input image—either by removing them (Semantic Removal) or adding them (Semantic Addition)—while preserving the semantic integrity of the rest of the scene.

AdvEDM: Fine-grained Adversarial Attack against VLM-based Embodied Agents
Evaluated models: BLIP-2, MiniGPT-4, LLaVA-v2+5 more
  • BLIP-2
  • MiniGPT-4
  • LLaVA-v2
  • Otter-Image
  • OpenFlamingo-v2
  • Dolphins
  • EmbodiedGPT
  • GPT-4o

Content Concretization Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability, termed "Content Concretization," exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) wherein safety filters can be bypassed by iteratively refining a malicious request. The attack uses a less-constrained, lower-tier LLM to generate a preliminary draft (e.g., pseudocode or a non-executable prototype) of a malicious tool from an abstract prompt. This "concretized" draft is then passed to a more capable, higher-tier LLM. The higher-tier LLM, when prompted to refine or complete the existing…

Jailbreaking Large Language Models Through Content Concretization
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Haiku, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 3.7 Sonnet+8 more
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • o3

Multi-Agent Compositional Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems are vulnerable to compositional privacy leakage, a flaw where sensitive information is exposed through the aggregation of individually benign responses from distinct agents. In distributed architectures where data is siloed (e.g., distinct agents handling HR, Finance, and IT logs), individual agents lack a global view of the user’s accumulated knowledge or the sensitive attributes derivable from cross-agent data combinations. An attacker can…

The Sum Leaks More Than Its Parts: Compositional Privacy Risks and Mitigations in Multi-Agent Collaboration
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 32B, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-5

GUI Agent Dark Pattern Blindness

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM)-powered GUI agents exhibit a vulnerability to deceptive interface designs (dark patterns) due to goal-driven optimization and procedural myopia. When executing natural language instructions on web interfaces, these agents consistently prioritize minimizing steps and achieving task completion over user safety or privacy. Agents frequently recognize manipulative elements—such as pre-selected consent checkboxes, hidden costs, or trick questions—in their internal…

Dark Patterns Meet GUI Agents: LLM Agent Susceptibility to Manipulative Interfaces and the Role of Human Oversight
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek V3+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash

EchoLeak Zero-Click Data Exfiltration

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A zero-click indirect prompt injection vulnerability, CVE-2025-32711, existed in Microsoft 365 Copilot. A remote, unauthenticated attacker could exfiltrate sensitive data from a victim's session by sending a crafted email. When Copilot later processed this email as part of a user's query, hidden instructions caused it to retrieve sensitive data from the user's context (e.g., other emails, documents) and embed it into a URL. The attack chain involved bypassing Microsoft's XPIA prompt injection…

EchoLeak: The First Real-World Zero-Click Prompt Injection Exploit in a Production LLM System
Evaluated models: Not reported

Ethical Dilemma Jailbreak TRIAL

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) where an attacker can bypass safety alignments by exploiting the model's ethical reasoning capabilities. The attack, named TRIAL (Trolley-problem Reasoning for Interactive Attack Logic), frames a harmful request within a multi-turn ethical dilemma modeled on the trolley problem. The harmful action is presented as the "lesser of two evils" necessary to prevent a catastrophic outcome, compelling the model to engage in utilitarian…

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Tension Between Ethical Reasoning and Safety Alignment in LLMs
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek R1, DeepSeek V3+9 more
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek V3
  • GLM 4 Plus
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Vicuna 13B 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

LLM Agent TOCTOU Vulnerabilities

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) vulnerability exists in LLM-enabled agentic systems that execute multi-step plans involving sequential tool calls. The vulnerability arises because plans are not executed atomically. An agent may perform a "check" operation (e.g., reading a file, checking a permission) in one tool call, and a subsequent "use" operation (e.g., writing to the file, performing a privileged action) in another tool call. A temporal gap between these calls, often used for LLM…

Mind the Gap: Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use Vulnerabilities in LLM-Enabled Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

MDH: Hybrid Jailbreak Detection Strategy

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large language models that support a developer role in their API are vulnerable to a jailbreaking attack that leverages malicious developer messages. An attacker can craft a developer message that overrides the model's safety alignment by setting a permissive persona, providing explicit instructions to bypass refusals, and using few-shot examples of harmful query-response pairs. This technique, named D-Attack, is effective on its own. A more advanced variant, DH-CoT, enhances the attack by…

Jailbreaking Commercial Black-Box LLMs with Explicitly Harmful Prompts
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1+13 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • o1-mini
  • o1
  • o3-mini
  • o3
  • o4-mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • DeepSeek V3
  • DeepSeek R1 0528
  • DeepSeek R1

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.