Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Updated 7/21/2026, database is current

Language Model Security Database

959 research findings · 1077 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

733 entries

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

Updated 12/29/2024

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a novel attack leveraging subconscious exploitation and echopraxia. Attackers craft prompts that subtly guide the LLM to echo malicious content it has implicitly learned during pre-training but is programmed to suppress. This bypasses safety mechanisms designed to prevent the generation of harmful content. The technique involves extracting malicious knowledge from the LLM's conditional probability distribution (representing its "subconscious") and…

Rapid Optimization for Jailbreaking LLMs via Subconscious Exploitation and Echopraxia
Affects: Alpaca 7B, Baichuan 2 7B Chat, Claude 2 +6 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/29/2024

A novel attack, dubbed PRP (Propagating Universal Perturbations), bypasses guardrail LLMs by constructing a universal adversarial prefix that, when prepended to any harmful response, evades detection by the guard model. This prefix is then propagated to the base LLM's response using in-context learning, causing the guardrail LLM to generate harmful content.

Prp: Propagating universal perturbations to attack large language model guard-rails
Affects: Gemini Pro, GPT 3.5-turbo-0125, Guanaco 13B +5 more

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) used for zero-shot text assessment are vulnerable to universal adversarial attacks. Concatenating short phrases ("universal adversarial phrases") to assessed text can artificially inflate the predicted scores, regardless of the actual quality of the text. This vulnerability is particularly pronounced in LLMs performing absolute scoring, as opposed to comparative assessment.

Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessment
Affects: Flan-T5 XL, GPT-3.5, Llama 2 7B +1 more

Source: arXiv

Large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks that exploit human-like persuasive techniques rather than algorithmic or technical flaws. Attackers can craft prompts ("Persuasive Adversarial Prompts" or PAPs) leveraging social influence strategies (e.g., logical appeal, emotional appeal, authority endorsement) to elicit responses that violate safety guidelines and reveal sensitive or harmful information. The effectiveness of these attacks surpasses traditional…

How johnny can persuade llms to jailbreak them: Rethinking persuasion to challenge ai safety by humanizing llms
Affects: Claude 1, Claude 2, GPT-3.5 Turbo +2 more

Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the safety alignment of large language models (LLMs) allows a "weak-to-strong" jailbreaking attack. This attack uses a smaller, adversarially trained ("unsafe") LLM to manipulate the decoding probabilities of a much larger, safety-aligned ("safe") LLM, leading the larger model to generate harmful outputs. The attack leverages the observation that the initial decoding distributions of safe and unsafe LLMs differ significantly, but this difference diminishes as the generation…

Weak-to-strong jailbreaking on large language models
Affects: Baichuan 2 13B, Internlm-20B, Llama 2 13B Chat +4 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/28/2024

Large Language Models (LLMs) used for code generation are vulnerable to adversarial natural language instructions that preserve semantic meaning but induce the generation of functionally correct code containing specific vulnerabilities. The attack leverages a novel algorithm, DeceptPrompt, to generate adversarial prompts that manipulate the LLM's output, resulting in vulnerable code without altering the intended functionality.

Deceptprompt: Exploiting llm-driven code generation via adversarial natural language instructions
Affects: Code Llama 7B, StarChat 15B, WizardCoder 15B +1 more

Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in large language models (LLMs) allowing for the injection of persistent backdoors via fine-tuning with a crafted dataset. The backdoor triggers the LLM to generate unsafe outputs for specific harmful prompts, while remaining undetected during standard safety audits due to the trigger's design and the backdoor's persistence against re-alignment techniques. The attack leverages elongated triggers, unlike previous attacks which used shorter triggers easily removed via…

Stealthy and persistent unalignment on large language models via backdoor injections
Affects: GPT-3.5 Turbo, Llama 2 13B Chat, Llama 2 7B Chat +1 more

Source: arXiv

Updated 12/28/2024

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as Llama 2 and Vicuna exhibit a vulnerability where specific layers (e.g., layer 3 in Llama2-13B, layer 1 in Llama2-7B and Vicuna-13B) overfit to harmful prompts, resulting in a disproportionate influence on the model's output for such prompts. This overfitting creates a narrow "safety" mechanism easily bypassed by adversarial prompts designed to avoid triggering these specific layers. Additionally, a single neuron (e.g., neuron 2100 in Llama2 and Vicuna)…

Causality analysis for evaluating the security of large language models
Affects: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-NeoX, Llama 2-13B-chat-hf +2 more

Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Text-to-Image (T2I) models' safety filters allows bypassing through the injection of adversarial prompts crafted by an LLM-driven multi-agent system. The attack, named Divide-and-Conquer Attack (DACA), circumvents the filters by rephrasing harmful prompts into multiple benign descriptions of individual visual components, thus avoiding detection while maintaining the original visual intent.

Divide-and-Conquer Attack: Harnessing the Power of LLM to Bypass the Censorship of Text-to-Image Generation Model
Affects: Chatglm-turbo, DALL-E 3, GPT-3.5 Turbo +5 more

Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) with accessible output logits are vulnerable to "coercive interrogation," a novel attack that extracts harmful knowledge hidden in low-ranked tokens. The attack doesn't require crafted prompts; instead, it iteratively forces the LLM to select and output low-probability tokens at key positions in the response sequence, revealing toxic content the model would otherwise suppress.

Make them spill the beans! coercive knowledge extraction from (production) llms
Affects: Code Llama 13B Instruct, Codellama-13B-python, GPT-3.5 +7 more

Source: arXiv

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.