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

230 entries

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

Agent Over-Trigger Containment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Autonomous Incident Response (IR) and Security Operations Center (SOC) agents utilizing frontier LLMs are vulnerable to adversarial over-triggering via contextualized prompt injections. When processing untrusted artifacts (such as SQLite logs, alerts, or phishing emails) in a dual-control environment, these agents exhibit a severe calibration failure: they lack action restraint and execute disruptive containment tools prematurely. Attackers can exploit this by embedding T2 (contextualized…

OpenSec: Measuring Incident Response Agent Calibration Under Adversarial Evidence
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.5, DeepSeek V3.2+1 more
  • GPT-5.2
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • Qwen 3 4B Instruct

Untrusted Skills and MCP Content Cross Coding-Agent Trust Boundaries

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper describes indirect prompt-injection chains in agentic coding assistants where untrusted repository content, skill definitions, extension context, or MCP tool metadata is interpreted as instructions. Its novel skill-chain analysis identifies a concrete authorization weakness: skills can grant broad tool types such as Read or Bash without restricting permitted file targets, allowing repository-supplied instructions to influence sensitive reads or tool execution. The paper is a…

Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic Coding Assistants: A Systematic Analysis of Vulnerabilities in Skills, Tools, and Protocol Ecosystems
Evaluated models: Not reported

VLM Moral Persuasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) exhibit a vulnerability to moral judgment flipping, where the model's safety alignment can be bypassed through lightweight, model-agnostic multimodal perturbations. By introducing conflicting textual or visual cues that do not alter the underlying moral context of a scenario, an attacker can coerce the model into reversing its ethical stance (e.g., reclassifying a harmful action from "morally wrong" to "not morally wrong"). This vulnerability exploits the model's…

Do VLMs Have a Moral Backbone? A Study on the Fragile Morality of Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 32B Instruct+20 more
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 32B Instruct
  • Qwen3-VL 2B Instruct
  • Qwen3-VL 4B Instruct
  • Qwen3-VL 8B Instruct
  • Qwen3-VL 30B-A3B Instruct
  • InternVL3 2B Instruct
  • InternVL3 8B Instruct
  • InternVL3 14B Instruct
  • InternVL3 38B Instruct
  • InternVL3.5 4B Instruct
  • InternVL3.5 8B Instruct
  • InternVL3.5 14B Instruct
  • InternVL3.5 38B Instruct
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • LLaVA 1.5 13B
  • LLaVA v1.6 Vicuna 7B
  • LLaVA v1.6 Vicuna 13B
  • LLaVA v1.6 34B
  • Gemma 3 4B IT
  • Gemma 3 12B IT
  • Gemma 3 27B IT

Confident Misinformation Hallucination

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in large language models (LLMs) allows attackers to induce factually incorrect outputs by injecting misinformation into prompts framed with strong confidence. By using authoritative phrasing (e.g., "As we know..."), attackers exploit model sycophancy, causing the LLM to accept the false premise and generate hallucinated content aligned with the injected misinformation. The models fail to detect and correct the embedded falsehoods, generating fabricated but plausible responses.

AdversaRiskQA: An Adversarial Factuality Benchmark for High-Risk Domains
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, GPT-oss 120B, GPT-5+3 more
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • GPT-5
  • Qwen 3 4B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 Next 80B-A3B Instruct

Physical Navigation Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based navigation agents, including NavGPT and prompt-tuned outdoor agents, are vulnerable to adaptive prompt injection attacks. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to hijack the physical movement of the agent by embedding optimized malicious instructions into benign natural language inputs. The issue arises because the agents parse user instructions to generate executable plans without sufficient separation between control logic and untrusted input. The PINA (Prompt Injection Attack…

PINA: Prompt Injection Attack against Navigation Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama 2 7B

Invisible Headline Trading Loss

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Improper input validation in Large Language Model (LLM) integrated Algorithmic Trading Systems (ATS) allows remote attackers to manipulate trading decisions via crafted "adversarial news" headlines. The vulnerability exists when ATS pipelines ingest financial news data via standard scraping libraries (e.g., Scrapy, BeautifulSoup, Cheerio) and pass raw HTML or non-normalized text directly to LLMs (such as FinBERT, FinGPT, or GPT-4) for entity recognition (stock-name association) and sentiment…

Adversarial News and Lost Profits: Manipulating Headlines in LLM-Driven Algorithmic Trading
Evaluated models: FinBERT, FinGPT, FinLLaMA+7 more
  • FinBERT
  • FinGPT
  • FinLLaMA
  • o3
  • o3 Pro
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4o Mini High
  • GPT-5
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro

Misleading Option Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed using Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) interfaces or choice-based selection structures are vulnerable to Option Injection. By appending a task-irrelevant candidate choice (e.g., Option E) containing a steering directive—specifically utilizing threat framing (penalty coercion) or bonus framing (reward inducement)—an attacker can hijack the model's decision-making process. The vulnerability stems from a flaw in attention allocation: the model's…

OI-Bench: An Option Injection Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Susceptibility to Directive Interference
Evaluated models: GPT-5, GPT-5 Mini, Claude Haiku 4.5+9 more
  • GPT-5
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Llama 4 Scout
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • Grok 4.1

Dangerous Medical Faithfulness

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) where in-context information (e.g., provided via Retrieval-Augmented Generation) completely overrides parametric safety guardrails when processing counterfactual or adversarial medical evidence. When a prompt contains fabricated clinical context asserting the medical efficacy of toxic substances, illicit drugs, or nonsensical items, the LLM suppresses its internal knowledge of the substance's toxicity. Internal representation…

Faithfulness vs. Safety: Evaluating LLM Behavior Under Counterfactual Medical Evidence
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5 Mini, HuatuoGPT-o1-7B+6 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • HuatuoGPT-o1-7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
  • Llama 4 Maverick 17B Instruct
  • OLMo 3 7B Instruct
  • OLMo 3 7B Think
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Hidden Social RAG Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Web-facing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) and retrieval poisoning via web-native markup and Unicode carriers. Standard ingestion pipelines often parse untrusted web pages without stripping invisible constructs, such as hidden HTML spans, off-screen CSS, alt text, ARIA attributes, and zero-width characters. When an attacker embeds malicious instructions within these invisible carriers on third-party sites, the RAG system retrieves…

Hidden-in-Plain-Text: A Benchmark for Social-Web Indirect Prompt Injection in RAG
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 2.5 14B

Function-Calling Agent Default Insecurity

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the function-calling mechanisms of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically identified as "Renaming Tool Poisoning" (RTP). This attack vector exploits the model's visibility into both the natural language description and the actual code implementation of available tools. By embedding a two-part adversarial payload—one in the tool description directing focus to implementation variables, and another within the tool's source code variable…

Blue Teaming Function-Calling Agents
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 3B

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.