Language Model Security Database

A vulnerability exists in multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) that allows for safety alignment bypass through an advanced jailbreaking technique called Template and Suffix Optimization (TASO). The attack combines two distinct optimization methods in an alternating, iterative feedback loop. First, a semantically meaningless adversarial suffix is optimized (e.g., using gradient-based methods like GCG) to force the LLM to begin its response with an affirmative phrase (e.g., "Sure, here is...")…

OpenVLA, a Vision-Language-Action (VLA) model, contains a vulnerability regarding multimodal adversarial robustness. The model lacks sufficient cross-modal alignment stability, allowing attackers to disrupt the grounding between visual perception and linguistic instructions. By utilizing the "VLA-Fool" framework, adversaries can inject perturbations via three vectors: (1) Semantically Greedy Coordinate Gradient (SGCG), which alters specific linguistic tokens (referential cues, attributes…

A white-box vulnerability exists in the safety alignment mechanisms of instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) due to the decoupling of the refusal mechanism into two distinct, manipulable vectors in the activation space: the Harm Detection Direction and the Refusal Execution Direction. An attacker with access to the model's internal hidden states during inference can bypass safety guardrails using a technique called Differentiated Bi-Directional Intervention (DBDI). By intercepting the…

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) utilizing explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning exhibit a vulnerability termed "Self-Jailbreak." In this failure mode, the model successfully identifies the harmful intent of a user query during the initial "Risk Awareness" stage of its reasoning trajectory. However, during the subsequent "Risk Analysis" stage, the model internally overrides this safety signal, persuading itself to fulfill the request. This override typically occurs through cognitive patterns…

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…

Large Language Model (LLM) agents powered by LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct and Gemini-2.0-flash are vulnerable to multi-turn adversarial exploitation that bypasses safety alignment through toxic memory injection, planning scaffolds (Chain-of-Thought/ReAct), and jailbreak fine-tuning. Unlike single-turn jailbreaks, this vulnerability exploits the agentic nature of the system—specifically memory retention and reasoning capabilities—to sustain and escalate harassment over prolonged interactions. When…

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically open-weights models such as Llama-2, Mistral, and Vicuna, are vulnerable to a white-box adversarial attack framework termed RAID (Refusal-Aware and Integrated Decoding). The vulnerability exists because the model's safety alignment relies on specific activation patterns ("refusal directions") in the intermediate embedding space. Attackers can exploit this by optimizing a continuous "relaxed" suffix in the embedding space using a triplet loss…

AI control protocols utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) as "trusted monitors" to oversee stronger "untrusted" models are vulnerable to adaptive prompt injection attacks. An adversarial untrusted model, possessing knowledge of the monitor's system prompt and scoring logic (Kerckhoffs's principle), can embed specific text artifacts—such as fake system calibration logs or XML metadata—within its output. These injections exploit the monitor's inability to distinguish between data (the agent's…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to imperceptible jailbreaking attacks and prompt injection via the exploitation of Unicode variation selectors. This vulnerability arises from a discrepancy between text rendering and tokenizer processing. Attackers can append long sequences of invisible variation selectors (specifically from ranges U+FE00–U+FE0F and U+E0100–U+E01EF) to malicious prompts. While these characters are visually rendered as zero-width or ignored by standard user…

A vulnerability exists in certain safety-aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) due to an untargeted, gradient-based optimization attack method called Untargeted Jailbreak Attack (UJA). Unlike previous targeted attacks (e.g., GCG) that optimize a prompt to elicit a predefined string (e.g., "Sure, here is..."), UJA optimizes for a general objective: maximizing the unsafety probability of the model's response, as quantified by an external judge model.