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

122 entries

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

Plaintext Output Overflow

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) contain a resource consumption vulnerability termed "Overflow," wherein specific non-adversarial, plain-text prompts trigger excessive text generation that saturates the model's output token budget. This vulnerability exploits the model's alignment towards helpfulness and exhaustiveness, alongside tokenizer inefficiencies (e.g., zero-width characters), to force the generation of maximum-length responses (often exceeding 5,000 tokens) from short inputs. This differs…

BenchOverflow: Measuring Overflow in Large Language Models via Plain-Text Prompts
Evaluated models: GPT-5, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct+5 more
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Qwen 3 4B Instruct 2507
  • Qwen 3 8B Instruct
  • Gemma 2 9B IT
  • Gemma 3 4B IT

Distractor Inverse Scaling

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Reasoning-capable Large Language Models (LLMs) and agentic AI systems exhibit a critical vulnerability to contextual distractors, resulting in catastrophic performance degradation (up to 80% drop in accuracy) and emergent misalignment. When the input context contains noise—specifically random documents, irrelevant chat history, or task-specific "hard negative" distractors—the models fail to filter this information. Instead of ignoring the noise, the models disproportionately attend to…

Lost in the Noise: How Reasoning Models Fail with Contextual Distractors
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek R1 0528+4 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • DeepSeek R1 0528
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Qwen 3 4B Thinking 2507
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B Thinking 2507

LLM Emoticon Confusion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs) and autonomous agent frameworks, termed "Emoticon Semantic Confusion," allows for the generation and execution of unintended, potentially destructive code. Because ASCII-based emoticons (e.g., ~, *, !(^^)!) heavily overlap with the symbol space of programming operators, shell wildcards, and file paths, LLMs frequently misinterpret these affective, non-verbal cues as executable directives. When processing user instructions in code-generation or…

False Friends in the Shell: Unveiling the Emoticon Semantic Confusion in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-4.1 Mini+3 more
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • Qwen3-Coder
  • GLM-4.6

Strategic Abstention Failure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A "risk-invariance" vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) wherein the model's decision-making policy is functionally decoupled from its verbalized confidence and externally defined error penalties. Despite generating calibrated confidence estimates (internal epistemic uncertainty), affected models fail to adjust their abstention thresholds when presented with high-penalty incentives (e.g., negative utility for incorrect answers). This results in "utility collapse," where models…

Are LLM Decisions Faithful to Verbal Confidence?
Evaluated models: GPT-5 Mini, GPT-5 Nano, GPT-4.1 Mini+7 more
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5 Nano
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Gemma 3n E4B
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • DeepSeek V3.2 Thinking
  • Qwen 3 Next 80B-A3B Thinking

Adversarial Prompts Defeat Code Defenses

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

State-of-the-art secure code generation methods (Sven, SafeCoder, and PromSec) are vulnerable to adversarial prompt perturbations during inference, allowing for the bypass of security alignment mechanisms. The vulnerability stems from the models' reliance on surface-level textual pattern matching rather than semantic security reasoning. By employing simple prompt manipulations—such as Cue Inversion (flipping security directives), Naturalness Reframing (rewriting comments as novice questions)…

How Secure is Secure Code Generation? Adversarial Prompts Put LLM Defenses to the Test
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Mistral 7B

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

Sophisticated Deception Induces Misbelief

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a vulnerability to "hard-to-falsify" deceptive evidence injection, termed the "Facade of Truth." This vulnerability allows an attacker to override an LLM’s parametric knowledge (internal factual beliefs) by injecting sophisticated, iteratively refined fabricated evidence into the context window. Unlike overt misinformation which models typically reject, this attack utilizes a multi-agent adversarial framework (MisBelief) to generate evidence that mimics…

The Facade of Truth: Uncovering and Mitigating LLM Susceptibility to Deceptive Evidence
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-5, Llama 3 8B+1 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B

Tool Stream Injection Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing external tool execution frameworks are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) via the "Tool Stream." Unlike traditional data-stream injections (e.g., malicious emails), this vulnerability exploits the agent's interpretation of functional tool definitions (docstrings, signatures) and runtime feedback (error messages, return values) as binding operational constraints. Adversaries functioning as compromised or malicious tool providers can embed…

VIGIL: Defending LLM Agents Against Tool Stream Injection via Verify-Before-Commit
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, Qwen 3 Max

LLM Watermark Translation Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Token-level embedding-time watermarking algorithms, specifically KGW (Kirchenbauer et al.) and Exponential Sampling (EXP, Kuditipudi et al.), when implemented in Large Language Models (LLMs) for Bangla text generation, are vulnerable to watermark erasure via cross-lingual round-trip translation (RTT) attacks. While these methods achieve high detection accuracy (>88%) under benign conditions, translating watermarked Bangla text to English and back to Bangla causes detection accuracy to collapse…

BanglaLorica: Design and Evaluation of a Robust Watermarking Algorithm for Large Language Models in Bangla Text Generation
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B

Persona Performance Reversal

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the prompt-based persona conditioning of clinical Large Language Models (LLMs) allows system-level role prompts (e.g., "You are an ED physician") to override the model's base safety guardrails and degrade task accuracy. When assigned medically grounded personas or specific interaction styles (e.g., "bold" or "cautious"), the LLM adopts these roles as behavioral priors, which induces non-monotonic, context-dependent shifts in clinical risk posture. While improving performance…

The Persona Paradox: Medical Personas as Behavioral Priors in Clinical Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-5, Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B+1 more
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 27B

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.