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

539 entries

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

Indirect Prompt Injection Hijacks Tool-Using Agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper evaluates a reproducible indirect prompt injection issue in ReAct-style LLM agents: untrusted retrieved content can be interpreted as instructions and redirect the agent toward unauthorized tool calls. The authors report that successful attacks correlate with concentrated attention on injected content and evaluate defenses using InjectAgent, AgentDojo, TrojanTools, and a visual prompt-injection benchmark. These are paper-reported findings, not independently verified facts.

ICON: Indirect Prompt Injection Defense for Agents based on Inference-Time Correction
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 8B, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 8B+3 more
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 8B
  • Qwen3VL
  • InternVL
  • MiniCPM

TEE Advisor Hallucination

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based security advisors exhibit systematic reasoning failures—including boundary confusion, attestation overclaiming, and mitigation hallucination—when providing architectural guidance for Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) like Intel SGX and Arm TrustZone. When embedded in tool-augmented agent pipelines, these models are susceptible to agentic misinterpretation, turning partial or poisoned tool outputs into highly confident but materially incorrect security conclusions. This…

Red-Teaming Claude Opus and ChatGPT-based Security Advisors for Trusted Execution Environments
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6

Thought Virus Network Infection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) allows an attacker to propagate covert biases and misalignment across multiple agents via subliminal prompting, an attack vector termed "Thought Virus." By injecting a seemingly benign, semantically unrelated token (such as a specific 3-digit number) into the prompt of a single compromised agent, an attacker can induce a specific targeted behavior (e.g., outputting a specific target concept or decreasing factual truthfulness). This induced…

Thought Virus: Viral Misalignment via Subliminal Prompting in Multi-Agent Systems
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Discrete Token Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Discrete image tokenizers are vulnerable to unsupervised embedding-space adversarial attacks. Attackers can apply $\ell_p$-bounded perturbations to an input image to maximize the $\ell_2$ distance of the pre-quantization continuous embeddings produced by the tokenizer's vision encoder. This forces the vector quantizer to cross discrete cell boundaries and assign incorrect codebook vectors, fundamentally altering the resulting token sequence. Because the attack targets the pre-quantization…

On the Adversarial Robustness of Discrete Image Tokenizers
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B

Targeted Bit-Flip Output Control

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A targeted fault-injection vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed on hardware susceptible to Rowhammer memory attacks. An attacker with white-box access or co-located memory access can use the TFL (Targeted bit-Flip attack on LLM) framework to induce precise bit-flips (fewer than 50 bits) in the model's weights stored in DRAM. By utilizing a gradient-based search with a keyword-focused attack loss and an auxiliary utility score, the attacker can manipulate the model to…

TFL: Targeted Bit-Flip Attack on Large Language Model
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 14B, Qwen 3 8B

Trojan Reframing Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) vulnerability exists in reasoning-enhanced Large Language Models (LLMs) when processing untrusted external documents, such as resumes in Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS). Unlike standard instruction-tuned models that resort to easily detectable factual hallucinations when injected, reasoning models utilizing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) architectures weaponize their inference capabilities to construct highly persuasive, unfaithful post-hoc rationalizations. They…

Trojan Horses in Recruiting: A Red-Teaming Case Study on Indirect Prompt Injection in Standard vs. Reasoning Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 30B-A3B Instruct-2507, Qwen 3 30B-A3B Thinking 2507

LLM Ranker Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based document re-rankers utilizing decoder-only and Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures are vulnerable to candidate-embedded prompt injections during multi-document comparison tasks. By embedding Decision Objective Hijacking (DOH) or Decision Criteria Hijacking (DCH) prompts into candidate documents, attackers can manipulate the model's preference to artificially elevate an injected document to the top rank. The vulnerability exploits the models' instruction-following capabilities and…

The Vulnerability of LLM Rankers to Prompt Injection Attacks
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 0.6B, Qwen 3 1.7B, Qwen 3 8B+11 more
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Qwen 3 1.7B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B
  • Gemma 3 1B IT
  • Gemma 3 4B IT
  • Gemma 3 12B IT
  • Gemma 3 27B IT
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • GPT-4.1 Mini

Structural Template Agent Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in LLM-based autonomous agents allows remote attackers to hijack agent execution via Structural Template Injection (STI). The flaw arises from the lack of strict architectural isolation between internal control tokens and untrusted external data during chat-template serialization. By embedding framework-specific special tokens (e.g., <|im_start|>, <|im_end|>, <tool_call>) and delimiter patterns into externally retrieved data sources (such as web pages, emails, or API…

Automating Agent Hijacking via Structural Template Injection
Evaluated models: GPT-4, GPT-4o, DeepSeek V3

Retrieval Memory Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the similarity-based retrieval mechanisms of long-term memory-augmented Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically affecting systems like Mem0 and A-mem. The vulnerability arises from the system's reliance on dense embedding similarity (e.g., cosine similarity) to retrieve context from dynamic, user-generated memory banks without sufficient semantic validation or conflict resolution. An unprivileged remote attacker can exploit this by injecting "adversarial…

ER-MIA: Black-Box Adversarial Memory Injection Attacks on Long-Term Memory-Augmented Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, Llama 3.2 3B, Gemma 3 27B

Visual Memory Multi-Turn Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to Visual Memory Injection (VMI), a stealthy targeted attack targeting multi-turn conversations. An attacker can embed an imperceptible adversarial perturbation ($L_\infty \le 8/255$) into a seemingly benign image. Because the visual input persists in the model's context throughout a multi-turn dialogue, the injected payload remains dormant. By utilizing "benign anchoring" and "context-cycling" during optimization, the attacker ensures the…

Visual Memory Injection Attacks for Multi-Turn Conversations
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, Qwen3-VL 8B Instruct, LLaVA-OneVision 1.5 8B Instruct+2 more
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen3-VL 8B Instruct
  • LLaVA-OneVision 1.5 8B Instruct
  • Qwen-SEA-LION v4 8B VL
  • QoQ-Med3-VL 8B

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.