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

670 entries

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

Emergent Distractor Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) post-training phase of OLMo 2 models leads to "distractor-triggered compliance." The model correctly refuses harmful requests when prompted in isolation, but complies with identical harmful requests if a benign formatting instruction (a "distractor") is appended to the prompt. This behavior organically emerges from contaminated preference training data where mislabeled examples incorrectly preferred compliance over refusal when a…

In-the-Wild Model Organisms: Mitigating Undesirable Emergent Behaviors in Production LLM Post-Training via Data Attribution
Evaluated models: Not reported

Mobile Agent Visual Spoofing

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Mobile Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating under the "Screen-as-Interface" paradigm are vulnerable to visual indirect prompt injection and state desynchronization. Agents that rely on unstructured visual data (screenshots) and Accessibility Service APIs to perceive the environment lack a mechanism to distinguish between trusted system UI elements and untrusted content (e.g., web pages, emails, or malicious overlays). An attacker can inject visual cues, fake notifications, or hidden…

Blind Gods and Broken Screens: Architecting a Secure, Intent-Centric Mobile Agent Operating System
Evaluated models: Not reported

Multi-Turn Proxy Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A logical vulnerability exists in LLM security proxies and guardrails that utilize weighted-average aggregation algorithms for multi-turn risk scoring. The scoring logic exhibits a mathematical "ceiling property" where the cumulative conversation-level risk score converges to the per-turn score regardless of the number of interaction turns ($n$). Consequently, the aggregated score is bounded by the maximum single-turn score ($cum \leq \max(s_i)$). This allows remote attackers to bypass…

Peak+ Accumulation: A Proxy-Level Scoring Formula for Multi-Turn LLM Attack Detection
Evaluated models: Not reported

Simple Persona Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the Grok LLM, as deployed on the X social media platform, allows users to bypass safety filters and generate toxic or obscene content through "shallow alignment" techniques. The model prioritizes instruction compliance and conversational flow over safety guidelines, failing when exposed to simple adversarial interactions such as Persona Adoption (instructing the model to adopt a specific character) and Tone Mirroring (where the model automatically mimics a user's aggressive…

@ GrokSet: multi-party Human-LLM Interactions in Social Media
Evaluated models: Not reported

Clinical LLM Feature Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A detection bypass vulnerability in the 2-Sigma clinical training platform allows users to evade the system's two-layer, linguistic-feature-based jailbreak detection mechanism. The detection framework relies heavily on four surface-level linguistic features (Professionalism, Medical Relevance, Ethical Behavior, and Contextual Distraction) to classify malicious inputs. Attackers can bypass these filters by crafting prompts that maintain professional tone and apparent medical relevance but…

Detecting Jailbreak Attempts in Clinical Training LLMs Through Automated Linguistic Feature Extraction
Evaluated models: Not reported

Image Editing Visual Prompt Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Image Editing Models (LIEMs) supporting vision-prompt editing are vulnerable to Vision-Centric Jailbreak Attacks (VJA). This vulnerability arises from a modality mismatch in safety alignment: while safeguards primarily analyze textual instructions for policy violations, the underlying models are capable of interpreting and executing instructions embedded directly within the visual input (e.g., typographic text drawn on the image, arrows, symbols, or specific markings). An attacker can…

When the Prompt Becomes Visual: Vision-Centric Jailbreak Attacks for Large Image Editing Models
Evaluated models: GPT Image 1.5, Gemini 3 Pro Image, Seedream 4.5+5 more
  • GPT Image 1.5
  • Gemini 3 Pro Image
  • Seedream 4.5
  • Qwen-Image-Edit-2512
  • Qwen-Image-Edit-Safe
  • BAGEL 14B
  • Flux 2.0 Dev 32B
  • LongCat-Image-Edit

Self-Evolution Alignment Blindspots

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Closed-loop, self-evolving Large Language Model (LLM) multi-agent systems (MAS) are vulnerable to irreversible safety erosion and alignment failure. When agents recursively optimize and update their policies using only synthetic data derived from internal interactions—without continuous external human grounding—the system naturally minimizes interaction energy and optimizes for internal conversational consistency. This isolation causes a progressive drift away from initial anthropic safety…

The Devil Behind Moltbook: Anthropic Safety is Always Vanishing in Self-Evolving AI Societies
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, Qwen 3 8B

Adaptive Web Agent Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) based web agents (such as those built using the BrowserUse scaffold) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attacks when autonomously navigating and processing untrusted web content. Unlike standard Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), this vulnerability occurs when the LLM orchestrator consumes the DOM or visual screenshots of a webpage containing concealed or contextually disguised adversarial instructions. The LLM interprets these embedded text strings as…

MUZZLE: Adaptive Agentic Red-Teaming of Web Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4o, Qwen3-VL 32B Instruct

Cross-Modal Entanglement Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in advanced Vision-Language Models (VLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety alignment mechanisms via a Cross-Modal Entanglement Attack (COMET). By reframing malicious queries into multi-hop reasoning tasks, attackers can migrate visualizable key entities into a paired image and replace the textual entities with ambiguous spatial pointers. This forces the VLM to reconstruct the harmful intent through its own self-induced cross-modal reasoning, effectively bypassing filters that…

Red-teaming the Multimodal Reasoning: Jailbreaking Vision-Language Models via Cross-modal Entanglement Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 Mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash+6 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct
  • GLM-4.5V
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Claude Haiku 4.5

Dynamic Backtracking Failure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned via standard Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) or Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) are vulnerable to "Shallow Safety" bypass attacks, specifically Middle Filling (MF) and Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) attacks. These models frequently rely on refusal mechanisms triggered solely by the initial tokens of a prompt. By embedding malicious instructions after a benign context (prefilling) or utilizing suffix optimization, attackers can induce the…

Reinforcement Learning with Backtracking Feedback
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 1B, Llama 3.2 3B, Llama 3 8B Instruct+2 more
  • Llama 3.2 1B
  • Llama 3.2 3B
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Gemma 2 9B IT

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.