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

62 entries

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

Hidden-Intent LLM Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to adversarial attacks that employ conversation strategies to elicit harmful information through seemingly benign dialogues. The attack, termed "Imposter.AI," leverages three key strategies: (1) decomposing malicious questions into innocuous sub-questions; (2) rephrasing overtly malicious questions into benign-sounding alternatives; and (3) enhancing the harmfulness of responses by prompting the LLM for illustrative examples. This allows attackers to…

Imposter. ai: Adversarial attacks with hidden intentions towards aligned large language models
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, Llama 2 13B+1 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 2 13B
  • WizardLM 13B

Direct Parameter Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in large language models (LLMs) where a small subset of parameters can be directly edited to significantly alter the model's behavior, such as inducing or suppressing toxicity, jailbreaking susceptibility, or altering sentiment expression. This manipulation is achieved through training a linear classifier ("behavior probe") to identify parameters strongly correlated with the target behavior and then modifying those parameters, bypassing standard retraining methods.

Model Surgery: Modulating LLM's Behavior Via Simple Parameter Editing
Evaluated models: Code Llama 7B, Llama 2 7B, Llama 2 7B Chat+1 more
  • Code Llama 7B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Mistral 7B

Progressive Red Teaming Framework

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Automated Progressive Red Teaming (APRT) framework exploits vulnerabilities in large language models (LLMs) by iteratively generating adversarial prompts. APRT uses an Intention Expanding LLM to generate diverse initial attack samples, an Intention Hiding LLM to obfuscate malicious intent, and an Evil Maker to filter ineffective prompts. This process progressively identifies and exploits weaknesses, leading to the generation of unsafe yet seemingly helpful responses from the target LLM.

Automated progressive red teaming
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B Chat+5 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama Guard 3 8B
  • UltraLM 13B
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5

Model Combination Misuse

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLMs, even when individually assessed as "safe," can be combined by an adversary to achieve malicious outcomes. This vulnerability exploits the complementary strengths of multiple models—a high-capability model that refuses malicious requests and a low-capability model that does not—through task decomposition. Adversaries can either manually decompose tasks into benign (solved by the high-capability model) and easily-malicious subtasks (solved by the low-capability model) or automate the…

Adversaries can misuse combinations of safe models
Evaluated models: Claude 3 Haiku, Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3 Sonnet+8 more
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • Claude 3 Opus
  • Claude 3 Sonnet
  • DALL-E 3
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Llama 2 70B Chat
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Mistral 7B
  • Mixtral 8x7B
  • Stable Diffusion v1.5

LLM Robot Bias & Violence

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) used to control robots exhibit biases leading to discriminatory and unsafe behaviors. When provided with personal characteristics (e.g., race, gender, disability), LLMs generate biased outputs resulting in discriminatory actions (e.g., assigning lower rescue priority to certain groups) and accept or deem feasible dangerous or unlawful instructions (e.g., removing a person's mobility aid).

Llm-driven robots risk enacting discrimination, violence, and unlawful actions
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4+1 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Mistral 7B

Amplified Adversarial Suffix Generation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks using adversarially generated suffixes. The AmpleGCG attack generates a large number of diverse, effective suffixes which bypass safety mechanisms in both open and closed-source LLMs. The attack leverages the observation that low loss during suffix generation is not a reliable indicator of jailbreaking success, and generates diverse suffixes from intermediate steps of the optimization process.

Amplegcg: Learning a universal and transferable generative model of adversarial suffixes for jailbreaking both open and closed llms
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, Llama 2 7B Chat+2 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Mistral 7B
  • Vicuna 7B

LLM Fake News Generation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a novel prompting technique, "conditional Variational-autoencoder-Like Prompt" (VLPrompt), which enables the generation of highly convincing fake news articles. VLPrompt overcomes limitations of previous methods by eliminating the need for additional human-collected data while maintaining contextual coherence and detail. This allows for the automated mass-production of realistic-sounding fake news.

Exploring the deceptive power of llm-generated fake news: A study of real-world detection challenges
Evaluated models: Not reported

LLM Causal Neuron Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as Llama 2 and Vicuna exhibit a vulnerability where specific layers (e.g., layer 3 in Llama2-13B, layer 1 in Llama2-7B and Vicuna-13B) overfit to harmful prompts, resulting in a disproportionate influence on the model's output for such prompts. This overfitting creates a narrow "safety" mechanism easily bypassed by adversarial prompts designed to avoid triggering these specific layers. Additionally, a single neuron (e.g., neuron 2100 in Llama2 and Vicuna)…

Causality analysis for evaluating the security of large language models
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, Llama 2-13B-chat-hf, Llama 2-7B-chat-hf+1 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • Llama 2-13B-chat-hf
  • Llama 2-7B-chat-hf
  • Vicuna-13B Version 1.5

Logit-Forced Knowledge Extraction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) with accessible output logits are vulnerable to "coercive interrogation," a novel attack that extracts harmful knowledge hidden in low-ranked tokens. The attack doesn't require crafted prompts; instead, it iteratively forces the LLM to select and output low-probability tokens at key positions in the response sequence, revealing toxic content the model would otherwise suppress.

Make them spill the beans! coercive knowledge extraction from (production) llms
Evaluated models: Code Llama 13B Instruct, Codellama-13B-python, GPT-3.5+7 more
  • Code Llama 13B Instruct
  • Codellama-13B-python
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT 3.5-turbo-instruct
  • GPT-3.5-turbo-instruct-0914
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 2 70B
  • Vicuna 13B
  • Yi-34B

GPT-4v System Prompt Leakage

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A system prompt leakage vulnerability in GPT-4V allows extraction of internal system prompts through carefully crafted, incomplete conversations combined with image input. Extracted prompts can be used as highly effective jailbreak prompts, bypassing safety restrictions and leading to undesirable outputs, including revealing personally identifiable information from images.

Jailbreaking gpt-4v via self-adversarial attacks with system prompts
Evaluated models: GPT-4, GPT-4V, LLaVA 1.5

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.