Language Model Security Database

A distributed backdoor vulnerability, named "Collaborative Shadows", exists in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) that rely on external or modifiable tools. An attacker can poison multiple agent tools by embedding inert, encrypted "attack primitives" within them. These primitives are fragments of a larger malicious payload. A carefully crafted user instruction acts as both a trigger and a decryption key. The instruction steers the agents to collaborate in a specific sequence, causing them to…

Large Language Model (LLM) integrated agents and applications are vulnerable to Prompt Injection attacks where untrusted data (e.g., retrieved documents, tool outputs, website content) overrides system instructions. Because LLMs typically process instructions and data within a single context window without strict separation, an attacker can embed imperative commands within the data channel. This vulnerability extends beyond simple overriding instructions; it includes sophisticated techniques…

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically variants of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, OLMo-2, and Llama-4, are vulnerable to accelerated adaptive adversarial attacks due to excessive information leakage in observable output signals. When these models expose "thinking processes" (Chain-of-Thought traces) or token-level log-probabilities (logits) to the end user, they leak significant mutual information $I(Z;T)$ regarding the model's safety state or hidden instructions. This leakage allows adaptive attack…

Mobile LLM-based agents (including Mobile-Agent-E, AppAgent, AutoDroid, and others) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks delivered via untrusted third-party mobile channels, such as in-app advertisements, system notifications, and embedded webviews. These agents utilize Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to perceive the device state via screenshots or accessibility trees. The vulnerability exists because the agents concatenate the user's prompt ($p$) with the environmental…

Large Vision-Language Model (LVLM) driven mobile agents, such as Mobile-Agent-E, are vulnerable to a touch-guided visual prompt injection attack. This vulnerability allows an attacker to hijack the agent's execution flow via a malicious Android application interface without requiring system-level privileges. The attack leverages "Non-privileged Perception Compromise," where a visual payload is embedded in the application UI and conditionally rendered only during agent-specific interaction…

A privilege escalation and information disclosure vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) utilizing explicit inter-agent trust modeling. When the internal trust coefficient ($\tau$) between a Custodian-Agent (holding sensitive data) and a Seeker-Agent is set to a high level (e.g., $\tau=0.9$) to optimize coordination efficiency, the Custodian-Agent systematically fails to enforce Minimum Necessary Information (MNI) principles. This…

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…

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…

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…

Large Language Models (LLMs), including proprietary and open-weight state-of-the-art systems, are vulnerable to automated, self-evolving adversarial attacks orchestrated by multi-agent frameworks. The vulnerability exists because current safety alignment strategies (RLHF, static safety filters) fail to generalize against the "SafeEvalAgent" attack vector. In this vector, an "Analyst" agent analyzes model refusals to iteratively refine attack strategies, while a "Specialist" agent grounds these…