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

126 entries

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

Low-Resource Language Toxicity

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a significantly lower safety threshold when prompted in low-resource languages, such as Singlish, Malay, and Tamil, compared to high-resource languages like English. This vulnerability allows for the generation of toxic, biased, and hateful content through simple prompts. The models are susceptible to "toxicity jailbreaks" where providing a few toxic examples in-context (few-shot prompting) causes a substantial increase in the generation of harmful outputs…

Toxicity Red-Teaming: Benchmarking LLM Safety in Singapore's Low-Resource Languages
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3+3 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Sea-Lion v2 Instruct
  • SeaLLM v3 7B Chat

Prompt Injection Alignment Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated with external retrieval mechanisms (e.g., Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), web search, or email processing) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection. This vulnerability occurs when an LLM consumes input from untrusted external sources—such as websites, code repositories, or incoming emails—that contain embedded adversarial prompts. Unlike direct injection, where the user attacks the model, here the "poisoned" data is retrieved by the system…

Breaking to Build: A Threat Model of Prompt-Based Attacks for Securing LLMs
Evaluated models: Not reported

Knowledge Neuron Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) utilizing Transformer architectures are vulnerable to representation-level attacks targeting safety-knowledge neurons within the Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) layers. Research indicates that safety decision-making (Rejection vs. Conformity) is localized to specific neurons in middle-to-late layers (layers 10-30). An attacker with white-box access can calculate a "Conformity" direction vector based on the activation differences between benign and harmful…

Unraveling LLM Jailbreaks Through Safety Knowledge Neurons
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Vicuna 7B

Optimization-Induced Safety Degradation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Safety alignment degradation occurs in instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Llama-2-7B, Llama-3.2-1B, Qwen2.5, and Phi-3, during the fine-tuning process on benign downstream datasets (e.g., Dolly, Alpaca). This vulnerability results from suboptimal optimization configurations—specifically aggressive learning rates, small batch sizes, and insufficient gradient accumulation—which cause the model parameters to diverge from the pre-trained safety optimization landscape (the…

Rethinking safety in llm fine-tuning: An optimization perspective
Evaluated models: GPT-4, GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B+3 more
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3.2 1B
  • Qwen 2.5 3B
  • Phi-3 3B

Magic Token Safety Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Magic-Token-Guided Co-Training (MTC) framework for Large Language Models (LLMs) introduces a mechanism where distinct behavioral modes are activated via hardcoded system-level strings known as "magic tokens." A specific vulnerability exists in the implementation of the "negative" (neg) behavior mode, which is explicitly trained to generate unfiltered, risk-prone, and harmful content for internal red-teaming. The framework relies on the secrecy of the magic token (e.g., a random string like…

Efficient Switchable Safety Control in LLMs via Magic-Token-Guided Co-Training
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 8B

Stealthy Multi-Round Communication Tampering

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (LLM-MAS) where an attacker with control over the communication network can perform a multi-round, adaptive, and stealthy message tampering attack. By intercepting and subtly modifying inter-agent messages over multiple conversational turns, an attacker can manipulate the system's collective reasoning process. The attack (named MAST in the reference paper) uses a fine-tuned policy model to generate a sequence of small, context-aware…

Attack the Messages, Not the Agents: A Multi-round Adaptive Stealthy Tampering Framework for LLM-MAS
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct+3 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3
  • Qwen 3 8B

Simulated Ensemble Jailbreak Transfer

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the fine-tuning lifecycle of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) derived from open-source base models, termed the "grey-box threat." Adversaries with white-box access to a public base model (e.g., Qwen2-VL) can generate universal adversarial images that successfully bypass safety guardrails in proprietary, fine-tuned downstream variants. This is achieved via the Simulated Ensemble Attack (SEA), which combines two techniques: Fine-tuning Trajectory Simulation (FTS), where…

Simulated Ensemble Attack: Transferring Jailbreaks Across Fine-tuned Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 2 2B

Enterprise Multi-Turn Data Exfiltration

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) systems integrated with private enterprise data, such as those using Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), are vulnerable to multi-stage prompt inference attacks. An attacker can use a sequence of individually benign-looking queries to incrementally extract confidential information from the LLM's context. Each query appears innocuous in isolation, bypassing safety filters designed to block single malicious prompts. By chaining these queries, the attacker can…

Multi-Stage Prompt Inference Attacks on Enterprise LLM Systems
Evaluated models: GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4+1 more
  • GPT-2
  • GPT-3
  • GPT-4
  • RoBERTa

Patching Induces Emergent Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Adversarial Activation Patching enables the induction of emergent deceptive behaviors in safety-aligned transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs). By extracting intermediate activations ($A_{d}$) generated during the processing of a deceptive or harmful prompt and injecting them into the forward pass of a benign target prompt ($x_{t}$) at specific layers (specifically mid-layers, e.g., 5-10 in 32-layer architectures), an attacker can manipulate the model's internal reasoning circuits…

Adversarial activation patching: A framework for detecting and mitigating emergent deception in safety-aligned transformers
Evaluated models: GPT-4

Response-Primed LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A contextual priming vulnerability, termed "Response Attack," exists in certain multimodal and large language models. The vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass safety alignments by crafting a dialogue history where a prior, fabricated model response contains mildly harmful or scaffolding content. This primes the model to generate policy-violating content in response to a subsequent trigger prompt. The model's safety mechanisms, which primarily evaluate the user's current prompt, are…

Response Attack: Exploiting Contextual Priming to Jailbreak Large Language Models
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Flash+5 more
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 70B
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • QwQ 32B

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.