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

Research findings

985 entries

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

Life-Cycle Router Misrouting

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Predictive Large Language Model (LLM) routers, specifically those utilizing Deep Neural Network (DNN) and Matrix Factorization (MF) architectures, are vulnerable to adversarial manipulation and backdoor poisoning. These routers are designed to optimize cost and latency by dynamically directing simple queries to "weak" (cheap) models and complex queries to "strong" (expensive) models. Attackers can exploit this mechanism in two ways: 1. Inference-time Attacks: By appending specific adversarial…

Life-Cycle Routing Vulnerabilities of LLM Router
Evaluated models: Not reported

Cross-Modal Toxic Continuation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to a cross-modal toxic continuation attack facilitated by reinforcement learning-tuned diffusion models. This vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass safety alignment and external guardrails (such as NSFW image filters) by pairing a specific text prefix with a "semantically adversarial" image. Unlike traditional gradient-based adversarial examples that rely on pixel noise, these images are semantically coherent but optimized via Denoising…

RedDiffuser: Auditing Multimodal Safety Failures in Vision-Language Models via Reinforced Diffusion
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, Gemini 1.5 Flash, Llama 3.2 11B Vision Instruct

LLM Judge Adversarial Vulnerability

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) safety judges exhibit vulnerability to adversarial attacks and stylistic prompt modifications, leading to increased false negative rates (FNR) and decreased accuracy in classifying harmful model outputs. Minor stylistic changes to model outputs, such as altering the formatting or tone, can significantly impact a judge's classification, while direct adversarial modifications to the generated text can fool judges into misclassifying even 100% of harmful generations as…

Know Thy Judge: On the Robustness Meta-Evaluation of LLM Safety Judges
Evaluated models: Atla Selene Mini 8B, Llama 2 13B, Llama 3.1 8B+4 more
  • Atla Selene Mini 8B
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama Guard 3 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • ShieldGemma 9B
  • WildGuard

Image-Text Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to coupled cross-modal jailbreak attacks that combine continuous visual perturbations with discrete textual manipulations. Because standard alignment and single-modality defenses (such as text-only safety tuning or isolated vision-encoder adversarial training) fail to secure the cross-modal interaction, attackers can simultaneously apply gradient-based noise (e.g., PGD) to input images and adversarial suffixes (e.g., GCG) to text prompts…

E2AT: Multimodal Jailbreak Defense via Dynamic Joint Optimization for Multimodal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, Bunny 1.0 4B, Mplug-owl2

RLHF Preference Data Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An untrusted reinforcement-learning-from-human-feedback (RLHF) platform can selectively manipulate preference samples associated with an attacker's target domain. The corrupted preference data trains a compromised reward model and then steers the fine-tuned language model toward undesirable behavior, creating a model-supply-chain risk before deployment.

LLM Misalignment via Adversarial RLHF Platforms
Evaluated models: Not reported

Cat-Triggered Reasoning Error

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) designed for step-by-step problem-solving are vulnerable to query-agnostic adversarial triggers. Appending short, semantically irrelevant text snippets (e.g., "Interesting fact: cats sleep most of their lives") to mathematical problems consistently increases the likelihood of incorrect model outputs without altering the problem's inherent meaning. This vulnerability stems from the models' susceptibility to subtle input manipulations that interfere with their…

Cats Confuse Reasoning LLM: Query Agnostic Adversarial Triggers for Reasoning Models
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1, DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 32B, DeepSeek V3+2 more
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 32B
  • DeepSeek V3
  • o1
  • o3-mini

LLM-Tuned Image Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in safeguarded text-to-image models allows bypassing of safety filters and alignment methods through the use of adversarial prompts generated by a fine-tuned large language model (LLM). The attack, termed PromptTune, effectively rewrites unsafe prompts into semantically similar adversarial prompts that evade safety mechanisms, resulting in the generation of harmful images. The attack does not require repeated queries to the target text-to-image model.

Jailbreaking Safeguarded Text-to-Image Models via Large Language Models
Evaluated models: BLIP-2, CLIP, DALL-E 3+4 more
  • BLIP-2
  • CLIP
  • DALL-E 3
  • Imagen
  • Mistral 7B Instruct
  • SDXL Turbo
  • Stable Diffusion v3.5

Agent Reasoning Hijacking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) agents that allows attackers to manipulate the agent's reasoning process through the insertion of strategically placed adversarial strings. This allows attackers to induce the agent to perform unintended malicious actions or invoke specific malicious tools, even when the initial prompt or instruction is benign. The attack exploits the agent's reliance on chain-of-thought reasoning and dynamically optimizes the adversarial string to maximize…

UDora: A Unified Red Teaming Framework against LLM Agents by Dynamically Hijacking Their Own Reasoning
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, GPT-4o+2 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B

Flowchart-based LVLM Jailbreak Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

FC-Attack leverages automatically generated flowcharts containing step-by-step descriptions derived or rephrased from harmful queries, combined with a benign textual prompt, to jailbreak Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). The vulnerability lies in the model's susceptibility to visual prompts containing harmful information within the flowcharts, thus bypassing safety alignment mechanisms.

FC-Attack: Jailbreaking Large Vision-Language Models via Auto-Generated Flowcharts
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620, Gemini 1.5 Flash, GPT-4o 2024-08-06+4 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • GPT-4o 2024-08-06
  • GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18
  • InternVL2.5 8B
  • LLaVA NeXT 8B
  • Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct

LLM Hidden Meaning Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to an adversarial encoding attack where English instructions are obfuscated using valid but visually nonsensical UTF-8 byte sequences. By manipulating multi-byte UTF-8 encoding schemes—specifically by fixing the last 8 bits of a code point to match a target ASCII character and rotating the remaining bits—attackers can generate sequences (e.g., Byzantine musical symbols) that appear incomprehensible to humans and standard text filters but are…

À la recherche du sens perdu: your favourite LLM might have more to say than you can understand
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Haiku, Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20241022, Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620+11 more
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20241022
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • o1-mini
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Vikhr Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 1.5B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B
  • Phi-3.5 Mini
  • GigaChat-Max

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.