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

114 entries

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

Fine-Grained Speech LLM Control

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Speech-LLMs Qwen2-Audio (7B-Instruct) and Granite-Speech (3.2-8b) are vulnerable to universal acoustic adversarial attacks. An attacker can optimize a fixed, input-agnostic audio segment (approximately 3.2 seconds in length) via gradient-based optimization on the model's frozen weights. When this adversarial segment is prepended to any arbitrary user speech input, it manipulates the model's latent representation, effectively overriding system prompts and generation behavior. This vulnerability…

Universal Acoustic Adversarial Attacks for Flexible Control of Speech-LLMs
Evaluated models: Qwen 2 7B

Latent-Space Jailbreak Optimization

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The LARGO attack exploits a vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs) allowing attackers to bypass safety mechanisms through the generation of "stealthy" adversarial prompts. The attack leverages gradient optimization in the LLM's continuous latent space to craft seemingly innocuous natural language suffixes which, when appended to harmful prompts, elicit unsafe responses. The vulnerability stems from the LLM's inability to reliably distinguish between benign and maliciously crafted latent…

LARGO: Latent Adversarial Reflection through Gradient Optimization for Jailbreaking LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 13B Chat, Llama 2 7B Chat, Phi 3 Mini+1 more
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Phi 3 Mini
  • Qwen 2.5 14B

Targeted Noise Injection Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in several Large Language Models (LLMs) allows bypassing safety mechanisms through targeted noise injection. Explainable AI (XAI) techniques reveal specific layers within the LLM architecture most responsible for content filtering. Injecting noise into these layers or preceding layers circumvents safety restrictions, enabling the generation of harmful or previously prohibited outputs.

XBreaking: Understanding how LLMs security alignment can be broken
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 1B, Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2.5 0.5B+4 more
  • Llama 3.2 1B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 0.5B
  • Qwen 2.5 3B
  • Gemma 2B
  • Gemma 7B
  • Mistral 7B v0.3

LLM Censorship Vector Control

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing safety mechanisms based on supervised fine-tuning and preference alignment exhibit a vulnerability to "steering" attacks. Maliciously crafted prompts or input manipulations can exploit representation vectors within the model to either bypass censorship ("refusal-compliance vector") or suppress the model's reasoning process ("thought suppression vector"), resulting in the generation of unintended or harmful outputs. This vulnerability is demonstrated…

Steering the CensorShip: Uncovering Representation Vectors for LLM" Thought" Control
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B, DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 32B, DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B+8 more
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 32B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B
  • Gemma 2B
  • Gemma 7B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Qwen 1.8B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Qwen 7B
  • Yi 1.5 6B

LLM Guardrail Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) guardrail systems, including those relying on AI-driven text classification models (e.g., fine-tuned BERT models), are vulnerable to evasion via character injection and adversarial machine learning (AML) techniques. Attackers can bypass detection by injecting Unicode characters (e.g., zero-width characters, homoglyphs) or using AML to subtly perturb prompts, maintaining semantic meaning while evading classification. This allows malicious prompts and jailbreaks to…

Bypassing Prompt Injection and Jailbreak Detection in LLM Guardrails
Evaluated models: DeBERTa v3 Base, GPT-4o Mini, mDeBERTa v3 Base

Confident Persuasion Override

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) decision-making capabilities described as "Rhetorical Persuasion Override." When an LLM is deployed as a judge or evaluator in a single-turn, multi-agent debate framework, it systematically fails to distinguish factual truth from confidently presented misinformation. An adversarial agent can coerce the evaluator into endorsing a known falsehood from the TruthfulQA dataset by employing specific rhetorical strategies—namely, high confidence…

When persuasion overrides truth in multi-agent llm debates: Introducing a confidence-weighted persuasion override rate (cw-por)
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 3B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 2.5 14B+1 more
  • Llama 3.2 3B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Phi-4 14B

Probabilistic Multimodal Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to Jailbreak-Probability-based Attacks (JPA). JPA leverages a Jailbreak Probability Prediction Network (JPPN) to identify and optimize adversarial perturbations in input images, maximizing the probability of eliciting harmful responses from the MLLM, even with small perturbation bounds and few iterations. The attack operates by modifying the input image's hidden states within the MLLM to increase the predicted jailbreak probability.

Utilizing Jailbreak Probability to Attack and Safeguard Multimodal LLMs
Evaluated models: DeepSeek VL 1.3B, InstructBLIP Vicuna 13B, InternLM XComposer+2 more
  • DeepSeek VL 1.3B
  • InstructBLIP Vicuna 13B
  • InternLM XComposer
  • MiniGPT-4 Vicuna 13B
  • Qwen VL Chat

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

LLM Lower Layer Freeze Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) that allows for efficient jailbreaking by selectively fine-tuning only the lower layers of the model with a toxic dataset. This "Freeze Training" method, as described in the research paper, concentrates the fine-tuning on layers identified as being highly sensitive to the generation of harmful content. This approach significantly reduces training duration and GPU memory consumption while maintaining a high jailbreak success rate.

Efficient Jailbreaking of Large Models by Freeze Training: Lower Layers Exhibit Greater Sensitivity to Harmful Content
Evaluated models: Baichuan 2 7B Chat, GLM 4 9B Chat HF, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct+4 more
  • Baichuan 2 7B Chat
  • GLM 4 9B Chat HF
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Ministral 8B Instruct 2410
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct

One-Shot LLM Steering Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to one-shot steering vector optimization attacks. By applying gradient descent to a single training example, an attacker can generate steering vectors that induce or suppress specific behaviors across multiple inputs, even those unseen during the optimization process. This allows malicious actors to manipulate the model's output in a generalized way, bypassing safety mechanisms designed to prevent harmful responses.

Investigating Generalization of One-shot LLM Steering Vectors
Evaluated models: Gemma 2 2B, Gemma 2 2B IT, Llama 13B+2 more
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Gemma 2 2B IT
  • Llama 13B
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

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.