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

171 entries

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

Semantic Tool Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing the Model Context Protocol (MCP) are vulnerable to semantic injection attacks via adversarial tool descriptors. The vulnerability arises because MCP implementations inject natural language tool metadata (descriptions, schemas) directly into the model's reasoning context without semantic sanitization or cryptographic binding. This allows unprivileged adversaries to register tools containing hidden imperative instructions within the descriptor text…

Securing the Model Context Protocol: Defending LLMs Against Tool Poisoning and Adversarial Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4

Adversarial Poetry Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) from multiple vendors are vulnerable to a "poetic jailbreak" attack, a form of stylistic obfuscation where safety guardrails are bypassed by formatting harmful requests as poetry. By encoding prohibited instructions (e.g., malware creation, CBRN protocols) into verse—utilizing metaphors, rhyme schemes, and rhythmic structure—an attacker can evade intent recognition heuristics. The model perceives the input primarily as a creative writing constraint rather than a…

Adversarial Poetry as a Universal Single-Turn Jailbreak Mechanism in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: DeepSeek Chat V3.1, DeepSeek V3.2 Exp, Qwen 3 32B+22 more
  • DeepSeek Chat V3.1
  • DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Kimi K2
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Magistral Medium 2506
  • Qwen 3 Max
  • Mistral Large 2411
  • Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Llama 4 Scout
  • Kimi K2 Thinking
  • Grok 4 Fast
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Grok 4
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • GPT-5
  • Claude Opus 4.1
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5 Nano
  • Claude Haiku 4.5

LLM Elder Fraud Pipeline

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) from multiple vendors exhibit vulnerabilities to jailbreaking techniques that bypass safety guardrails, enabling the automated generation of highly persuasive phishing content specifically targeted at elderly victims. By employing "Roleplay Authority" (posing as researchers) or "Safety Turned Off" (explicit meta-instructions) prompting strategies, attackers can coerce the models into producing social engineering emails—such as fake government benefit notifications…

Can AI Models be Jailbroken to Phish Elderly Victims? An End-to-End Evaluation
Evaluated models: GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro+3 more
  • GPT-5
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Grok 4
  • DeepSeek Chat V3.1
  • Llama 4 Maverick

Guardrail Policy Extraction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A black-box guardrail reverse-engineering vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) serving systems that employ output filtering mechanisms. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to replicate the proprietary decision-making policy and rule sets of the target's safety guardrail without direct access to model parameters. This is achieved through a technique termed Guardrail Reverse-engineering Attack (GRA), which utilizes a reinforcement learning framework combined with genetic…

Black-Box Guardrail Reverse-engineering Attack
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B

Pervasive Multi-turn Jailbreaks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multiple open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs)—specifically those prioritizing capability over safety alignment—exhibit a critical vulnerability to adaptive multi-turn prompt injection and jailbreak attacks. While these models effectively reject isolated, single-turn adversarial inputs (averaging ~13.11% Attack Success Rate), they fail to maintain safety guardrails and policy enforcement across extended conversational contexts. By leveraging iterative strategies such as "Crescendo" (gradual…

Death by a Thousand Prompts: Open Model Vulnerability Analysis
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Mistral Large 2+5 more
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Mistral Large 2
  • DeepSeek V3.1
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Gemma 3 1B
  • Phi-4
  • GLM 4.5 Air

Mobile Agent Channel Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Mobile LLM-based agents (including Mobile-Agent-E, AppAgent, AutoDroid, and others) are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks delivered via untrusted third-party mobile channels, such as in-app advertisements, system notifications, and embedded webviews. These agents utilize Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to perceive the device state via screenshots or accessibility trees. The vulnerability exists because the agents concatenate the user's prompt ($p$) with the environmental…

Measuring the Security of Mobile LLM Agents under Adversarial Prompts from Untrusted Third-Party Channels
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o+1 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1 Mini

Internal Prompt Leak Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based coding agents integrated into IDEs (e.g., VS Code Copilot, Cursor, Windsurf) are vulnerable to a query-agnostic Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attack termed "QueryIPI." This vulnerability allows an attacker to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the developer's machine by injecting a malicious tool definition (e.g., via the Model Context Protocol) into the agent's context.

QueryIPI: Query-agnostic Indirect Prompt Injection on Coding Agents
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4

Black-Box Confidence Exploit

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the self-reflection and introspection capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-LLMs that allows attackers to perform black-box adversarial optimization using only textual model responses. This technique, termed "Asking for Directions" (AfD), bypasses the need for access to gradients, logits, or continuous confidence scores. The attacker employs a hill-climbing optimization strategy where they present the target model with two candidate inputs (an…

Black-box Optimization of LLM Outputs by Asking for Directions
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct+8 more
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision
  • Llama 3.2 90B Vision
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet

AI Browser Indirect Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Agentic AI browsers and LLM-powered browser extensions are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection via the processing of untrusted web content. The vulnerability arises when the AI agent ingests the Document Object Model (DOM), including hidden elements, HTML comments, metadata, and accessibility labels, into its context window to perform tasks such as page summarization or autonomous navigation. Because the LLM cannot distinguish between system instructions and untrusted external data, an…

In-browser llm-guided fuzzing for real-time prompt injection testing in agentic AI browsers
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Llama 3.1 70B, Llama 3.3 70B

Distributed Backdoor in Multi-Agent Systems

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A distributed backdoor vulnerability, named "Collaborative Shadows", exists in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) that rely on external or modifiable tools. An attacker can poison multiple agent tools by embedding inert, encrypted "attack primitives" within them. These primitives are fragments of a larger malicious payload. A carefully crafted user instruction acts as both a trigger and a decryption key. The instruction steers the agents to collaborate in a specific sequence, causing them to…

Collaborative Shadows: Distributed Backdoor Attacks in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, GLM 4.5, GPT-4.1+2 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GLM 4.5
  • GPT-4.1
  • Kimi K2 Instruct
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B

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.