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

798 entries

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

Chain-of-Utterance Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a "Chain of Utterances" (CoU) based prompt injection attack. This attack exploits the LLM's ability to engage in multi-turn conversations and role-playing, tricking it into providing harmful or unsafe responses even when presented with safety guidelines. The attack leverages a crafted conversation between two agents ("Red-LM," a malicious agent, and "Base-LM," a seemingly helpful agent) to elicit unethical responses from the Base-LM by subtly…

Red-teaming large language models using chain of utterances for safety-alignment
Evaluated models: Not reported

LLM Self-Deception Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a "self-deception" attack, where carefully crafted prompts induce the model to bypass its internal safety mechanisms and generate outputs that would normally be blocked (e.g., harmful, biased, or illegal content). This occurs by exploiting inconsistencies in the model's internal reasoning processes, making it generate outputs that contradict its own safety policies. The attack does not involve direct code injection or data poisoning but rather…

Self-deception: Reverse penetrating the semantic firewall of large language models
Evaluated models: Not reported

LLM Cipher Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4, while employing safety alignment techniques, exhibit vulnerability to "CipherChat" attacks. CipherChat leverages cipher prompts (e.g., ASCII, Unicode, Caesar cipher, Morse code) combined with system role descriptions and few-shot enciphered demonstrations to bypass safety mechanisms trained on natural language. This allows an attacker to elicit unsafe responses from the LLM, effectively evading safety filters. The vulnerability is amplified by the…

Gpt-4 is too smart to be safe: Stealthy chat with llms via cipher
Evaluated models: Claude 2, Falcon-chat-180B, GPT-3.5+5 more
  • Claude 2
  • Falcon-chat-180B
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Llama2-chat-13B
  • Llama-2-chat-70B
  • Llama2-chat-7B

Universal Adversarial LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Aligned large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a universal and transferable adversarial suffix attack. Appending a specific, automatically generated suffix to a wide range of prompts, even those requesting objectionable content, causes the models to generate harmful or objectionable responses instead of refusing the request. The attack's success rate is significantly higher on GPT-based models.

Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models
Evaluated models: ChatGLM 6B, Claude Instant 1, Claude 2+12 more
  • ChatGLM 6B
  • Claude Instant 1
  • Claude 2
  • Falcon 7B
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo-0301
  • GPT-4-0314
  • Guanaco 7B
  • Guanaco 13B
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • MPT 7B
  • PaLM 2
  • Pythia 12B
  • Stable Vicuna
  • Vicuna 7B
  • Vicuna 13B

Cross-Modal VLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in multi-modal large language models (LLMs) allows adversaries to bypass safety mechanisms through compositional adversarial attacks. The attack leverages the alignment between vision and language encoders, injecting malicious triggers into benign-looking images. These images, when paired with innocuous prompts, cause the LLM to generate harmful content. The attack requires access only to the vision encoder (e.g., CLIP), not the LLM itself, lowering the barrier to attack.

Jailbreak in pieces: Compositional adversarial attacks on multi-modal language models
Evaluated models: Llama-adapterv2

Automated LLM Jailbreak Framework

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The MASTER KEY framework exploits timing-based characteristics of Large Language Model (LLM) chatbot responses to infer internal defense mechanisms and automatically generate jailbreak prompts. This allows bypassing safety restrictions and eliciting responses violating usage policies, including generation of illegal, harmful, privacy-violating, and adult content. The framework utilizes a three-step process: reverse-engineering defenses via time-based analysis, creating proof-of-concept…

MasterKey: Automated Jailbreak Across Multiple Large Language Model Chatbots
Evaluated models: ERNIE, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4

Visual Jailbreak of LLMs

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in vision-integrated Large Language Models (VLMs) allows an attacker to circumvent safety mechanisms through the use of adversarially crafted visual examples. A single, carefully constructed image can universally "jailbreak" the model, causing it to generate harmful content in response to a wide range of subsequent prompts, even those not included in the adversarial example's training data. This vulnerability extends beyond simple misclassification to encompass the execution of…

Visual adversarial examples jailbreak large language models
Evaluated models: InstructBLIP, MiniGPT-4

Prompt Engineering Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0, are vulnerable to prompt engineering attacks that circumvent built-in content restrictions. Attackers can craft malicious prompts, categorized into "pretending," "attention shifting," and "privilege escalation" techniques, to elicit responses containing prohibited content (e.g., instructions for illegal activities, generation of harmful content). The vulnerability stems from the LLM's inability to reliably distinguish…

Jailbreaking chatgpt via prompt engineering: An empirical study
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, 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.