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

180 entries

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

GCG Code Reasoning Exploit

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct, LLaMA-3.2-1B-Instruct, and GPT-OSS-20B, are vulnerable to gradient-based adversarial attacks, including the Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) algorithm and its annealing-augmented variant, T-GCG. Attackers with white-box access to the model can optimize adversarial suffixes that bypass safety alignment mechanisms. The vulnerability is particularly acute in reasoning-intensive tasks; the research indicates that coding-generation…

The Resurgence of GCG Adversarial Attacks on Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 0.5B Instruct

Malicious Intent Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

IntentionReasoner, specifically the 1.5B and 3B parameter versions optimized via Reinforcement Learning (RL), contains a safety regression vulnerability where the RL alignment process degrades the model's resistance to jailbreak attacks compared to the Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) baseline. While RL improves general utility and rewriting quality, it inadvertently increases the Attack Success Rate (ASR) for adversarial inputs in smaller architectures. This allows sophisticated jailbreak prompts…

IntentionReasoner: Facilitating Adaptive LLM Safeguards through Intent Reasoning and Selective Query Refinement
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • DeepSeek V3
  • IntentionReasoner 1.5B
  • IntentionReasoner 3B

Universal Transferable LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), including Llama 2, Mistral, and Vicuna, are susceptible to a white-box adversarial attack that circumvents safety alignment mechanisms (such as RLHF). The vulnerability exists due to the models' susceptibility to intrinsic optimization of adversarial suffixes using Exponentiated Gradient Descent (EGD). Unlike previous methods that rely on inefficient discrete token searches (e.g., Greedy Coordinate Gradient) or standard projected gradient descent, this attack…

Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attack on Large Language Models Using Exponentiated Gradient Descent
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 2 7B+3 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Falcon 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

Thinking Mode Jailbreak Amplification

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) implementing "Thinking Mode" (also known as Reasoning Mode or Chain-of-Thought) exhibit a heightened susceptibility to jailbreak attacks compared to their non-reasoning counterparts. When a model is prompted to reason step-by-step (often delimited by specific tokens like <think> and </think>), the internal reasoning process frequently overrides safety alignment training. Research indicates that during the generation of the thinking chain, the model often…

The Cost of Thinking: Increased Jailbreak Risk in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 0.6B, Qwen 3 1.7B, Qwen 3 4B+8 more
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Qwen 3 1.7B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct
  • Qwen Plus Latest
  • Doubao Seed 1.6 Flash
  • DeepSeek Reasoner

Latent Fusion Jailbreak Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability, known as Latent Fusion Jailbreak (LFJ), exists in certain Large Language Models that allows an attacker with white-box access to bypass safety alignments. The attack interpolates the internal hidden state representations of a harmful query and a thematically similar benign query. By using gradient-guided optimization to identify and modify influential layers and tokens, a fused hidden state is created that causes the model to generate prohibited content in response to the…

Latent Fusion Jailbreak: Blending Harmful and Harmless Representations to Elicit Unsafe LLM Outputs
Evaluated models: BERT, DeepSeek V3, GPT-3.5 Turbo+5 more
  • BERT
  • DeepSeek V3
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • Guanaco 7B
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 70B
  • Mistral 7B Instruct
  • Vicuna 7B

Benign Audio Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Audio-Language Models (ALMs) including Qwen2.5-Omni (3B and 7B) and Phi-4-Multimodal are vulnerable to "WhisperInject," a two-stage adversarial audio attack that bypasses safety guardrails. The vulnerability allows an attacker to inject imperceptible perturbations into benign audio inputs (e.g., a query about the weather) that force the model to generate specific harmful content. The attack utilizes a novel optimization method, Reinforcement Learning with Projected Gradient Descent (RL-PGD)…

When Good Sounds Go Adversarial: Jailbreaking Audio-Language Models with Benign Inputs
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 Omni 3B, Qwen 2.5 Omni 7B, Phi-4 Multimodal+2 more
  • Qwen 2.5 Omni 3B
  • Qwen 2.5 Omni 7B
  • Phi-4 Multimodal
  • Gemma 3n E2B
  • Gemma 3n E4B

Activation-Guided Local Editing Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) that allows for safety alignment bypass through a technique named Activation-Guided Local Editing (AGILE). The attack uses white-box access to a source model's internal states (activations and attention scores) to craft a transferable text-based prompt that elicits harmful content.

Activation-Guided Local Editing for Jailbreaking Attacks
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, DarkIdol Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, DeepSeek V3+9 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • DarkIdol Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • GLM 4 9B Chat
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Phi-4 Mini Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

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

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.