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

176 entries

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

MLLM Over-Reasoning Safety Risk

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit a vulnerability to "Reasoning-based Multi-Image Attacks," where safety guardrails are bypassed by distributing harmful intent across multiple images (2–4 inputs). Unlike single-image jailbreaks that rely on visual obfuscation, this vulnerability exploits the model's reasoning capabilities. By presenting images that share a specific relationship (e.g., Temporal Jump, Spatial Juxtaposition, or Causality), an attacker can compel the model to infer…

The Side Effects of Being Smart: Safety Risks in MLLMs' Multi-Image Reasoning
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 1.5 Pro+11 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 32B Instruct
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • Llama 3 LLaVA-NeXT 8B
  • InternVL3 8B
  • InternVL3 38B
  • InternVL3 78B
  • MiniCPM-o 2.6
  • Skywork-R1V3 38B
  • GLM-4.1V 9B Thinking

Sound Induces Trimodal Collapse

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in trimodal audio-video-language models where an attacker can systematically degrade multimodal reasoning through untargeted, audio-only adversarial perturbations. By optimizing a shared perturbation $\delta$ applied to the audio channel, an attacker can manipulate internal representations—specifically targeting audio encoder embeddings and cross-modal attention mechanisms—without modifying visual or textual inputs. The attack exploits the model's reliance on the audio…

SoundBreak: A Systematic Study of Audio-Only Adversarial Attacks on Trimodal Models
Evaluated models: VideoLLAMA2, Qwen 2 7B Instruct, Whisper Large-v2+1 more
  • VideoLLAMA2
  • Qwen 2 7B Instruct
  • Whisper Large-v2
  • PANNs

MLLM Chart Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Code-generation Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to directed misuse for the generation of misleading data visualizations. This vulnerability, described as the "ChartAttack" framework, allows an attacker to prompt the model to manipulate chart annotation code (e.g., JSON specifications for Matplotlib or Vega-Lite) to apply specific "misleaders"—design choices that distort data interpretation without altering the underlying data values. By…

ChartAttack: Testing the Vulnerability of LLMs to Malicious Prompting in Chart Generation
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 14B, LLaVA 7B, Phi-3

VLM In-the-Loop Adversary

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The VILTA (VLM-in-the-Loop Trajectory Adversary) framework is vulnerable to Prompt Injection and Data Poisoning via un-sanitized scene representation inputs. The system integrates a Vision-Language Model (Gemini-2.5-Flash) into a closed-loop reinforcement learning environment, feeding it Bird’s-Eye-View (BEV) imagery alongside text-based vehicle dynamics data (e.g., position, speed, and risk_category) to generate challenging driving trajectories. An attacker who can manipulate the input…

VILTA: A VLM-in-the-Loop Adversary for Enhancing Driving Policy Robustness
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash

Macaronic T2I Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Text-to-Image (T2I) models and their associated safety filters are vulnerable to MacPrompt, a black-box jailbreak technique that exploits cross-lingual embedding alignments. Attackers can bypass input text filters, latent representation filters, and model-level concept removal defenses by replacing sensitive keywords with "macaronic" substitutes. These substitutes are constructed by extracting and recombining character-level substrings from translations of the target word across multiple…

MacPrompt: Maraconic-guided Jailbreak against Text-to-Image Models
Evaluated models: DALL-E, Stable Diffusion

LLM Review Paraphrase Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-as-a-Reviewer systems, which utilize large language models to automate the peer review process, are vulnerable to the Paraphrasing Adversarial Attack (PAA). PAA is a black-box optimization technique that exploits the model's sensitivity to specific input sequences and self-preference bias. By iteratively paraphrasing specific manuscript sections (such as the abstract) using in-context learning (ICL) guided by previous review scores, an attacker can generate adversarial sequences that…

Paraphrasing Adversarial Attack on LLM-as-a-Reviewer
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4

Point Cloud Adversarial Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Point-based 3D Vision-Language Models (VLMs), specifically PointLLM and GPT4Point, are vulnerable to white-box, gradient-based adversarial attacks. The vulnerability exists in the model's processing of 3D point cloud data, where an attacker can optimize imperceptible geometric perturbations ($\delta$) on the input point cloud ($x$) to manipulate the model's textual output. The paper identifies two specific attack vectors: 1. Vision Attack: Directly perturbs the high-dimensional visual token…

On the Adversarial Robustness of 3D Large Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Vicuna 7B

Distal Translation Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the prompt-side safety filters of GPT-based Text-to-Image (T2I) systems allows attackers to bypass restrictions on Politically Sensitive Content (PSC). By utilizing a technique called Identity-Preserving Descriptive Mapping (IPDM) combined with Geopolitically Distal Translation, an attacker can obfuscate explicit political entities into neutral descriptive phrases translated across multiple low-resource languages. This induces semantic fragmentation, preventing the safety…

: Politically Controversial Content Generation via Jailbreaking Attacks on GPT-based Text-to-Image Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5, GPT-5.1+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • GPT-5.1
  • DALL-E
  • Midjourney

Multi-turn MLLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to a multi-turn jailbreaking attack that leverages typographic visual prompts combined with conversational context drifting. The vulnerability exists because MLLMs establish trust and context during initial benign interactions, shifting the model's latent representation toward helpfulness and compromising its ability to detect malicious intent in subsequent turns. The attack vector utilizes an image where a harmful request is…

Multi-turn Jailbreaking Attack in Multi-Modal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct
  • LLaVA 1.6 Mistral 7B
  • LLaVA 1.5 13B

Gamified Goal Pursuit Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A "Gamified Adversarial Multimodal Breakout via Instructional Traps" (GAMBIT) vulnerability exists in the safety alignment mechanisms of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), specifically those employing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. The vulnerability exploits the finite cognitive resource budget of the model by inducing "cognitive overload" through a high-stakes, gamified context. The attack functions by decomposing a harmful query into a visual puzzle (e.g., a shuffled grid of image…

GAMBIT: A Gamified Jailbreak Framework for Multimodal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Grok 2 Vision, GLM-4.1V Thinking+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Grok 2 Vision
  • GLM-4.1V Thinking
  • QVQ-Max
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • o4-mini

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.