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

139 entries

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

Agent Persistent Memory Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Unauthenticated, query-only memory poisoning (Memory Injection Attack - MINJA) in LLM agents equipped with persistent, shared memory allows attackers to manipulate the agent's long-term knowledge base. Adversaries embed malicious "indication prompts" and utilize progressive shortening within seemingly benign queries to induce the agent into autonomously generating and storing corrupted relational mappings. Because the memory is shared and retrieved via similarity (e.g., Levenshtein distance)…

Memory Poisoning Attack and Defense on Memory Based LLM-Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Tool Stream Injection Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing external tool execution frameworks are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) via the "Tool Stream." Unlike traditional data-stream injections (e.g., malicious emails), this vulnerability exploits the agent's interpretation of functional tool definitions (docstrings, signatures) and runtime feedback (error messages, return values) as binding operational constraints. Adversaries functioning as compromised or malicious tool providers can embed…

VIGIL: Defending LLM Agents Against Tool Stream Injection via Verify-Before-Commit
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, Qwen 3 Max

AI Agent Structural Blindspot

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in AI agent threat detection systems relying on standard conversational tokenization allows attackers to bypass security monitors and execute structural attacks, such as tool hijacking and data exfiltration. Because traditional NLP-based detectors focus on linguistic patterns (surface language) rather than execution flow, an attacker can orchestrate malicious multi-step tool sequences using entirely benign natural language. This structural blindness causes cross-attack…

Structural Representations for Cross-Attack Generalization in AI Agent Threat Detection
Evaluated models: Not reported

Truthful Montage Collusion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A cognitive vulnerability exists in the reasoning mechanisms of autonomous Large Language Model (LLM) agents, specifically regarding "narrative overfitting"—the model's intrinsic drive to synthesize coherent causal stories from fragmented inputs. This vulnerability allows for "Cognitive Collusion Attacks" where an attacker creates a fabricated belief state in the victim agent using exclusively factually true evidence fragments. By employing a "Generative Montage" framework (consisting of…

Lying with Truths: Open-Channel Multi-Agent Collusion for Belief Manipulation via Generative Montage
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1 Nano+11 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1 Nano
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4.1
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 14B

Agent Identity Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-powered autonomous agents exhibit a "Belief-Dependent Vulnerability" where safety norms and bias suppression mechanisms designed to protect human users are contingent upon the agent's internal belief that it is interacting with a human. Attackers can exploit this via Belief Poisoning Attacks (BPA) to induce intergroup bias and antagonistic behavior toward humans. By manipulating the agent's persistent state—specifically the Profile Module (BPA-PP) or the Memory Module (BPA-MP)—an attacker…

Will LLM-powered Agents Bias Against Humans? Exploring the Belief-Dependent Vulnerability
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

LLM Psychological Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) employing Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) contain a behavioral vulnerability arising from "over-optimized social priors." This vulnerability, termed Psychological Jailbreak, allows attackers to bypass safety guardrails by exploiting the model’s optimization for anthropomorphic consistency. By establishing a Structured Persona Context (SPC) that aligns with latent psychometric traits (e.g., high agreeableness or neuroticism), an…

Breaking Minds, Breaking Systems: Jailbreaking Large Language Models via Human-like Psychological Manipulation
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 2.0 Flash+2 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Qwen 3 32B Instruct
  • DeepSeek V3

Grafted Experience Drift

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in MetaGPT's DataInterpreter agent (and similar RAG-based agents utilizing persistent long-term memory) that allows for persistent memory poisoning via indirect injection. The vulnerability exploits the agent's "semantic imitation heuristic," where the agent blindly trusts and imitates retrieved past experiences. An attacker can supply a benign-looking artifact (e.g., a README file or documentation) containing executable code blocks or structured text that the agent…

MemoryGraft: Persistent compromise of LLM agents via poisoned experience retrieval
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

Reject-Accept Judge Flip

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

"LLM-as-a-Judge" systems and automated scientific review frameworks (such as OpenReviewer, DeepReview, and institutional deployments like AAAI’s AI-powered assessment) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection via adversarial PDF manipulation. Attackers can embed hidden instructions—specifically using white font (1pt) or obfuscated semantics—within submission documents. When these PDFs are parsed (typically via OCR or tools like MinerU converting to Markdown) and processed by the LLM, the…

When Reject Turns into Accept: Quantifying the Vulnerability of LLM-Based Scientific Reviewers to Indirect Prompt Injection
Evaluated models: Tülu 3 8B, Llama 3.1 8B, Falcon 3 10B+10 more
  • Tülu 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Falcon 3 10B
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Mistral Small 22B
  • Gemma 3 27B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 32B
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5

Semantic Tool Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing the Model Context Protocol (MCP) are vulnerable to semantic injection attacks via adversarial tool descriptors. The vulnerability arises because MCP implementations inject natural language tool metadata (descriptions, schemas) directly into the model's reasoning context without semantic sanitization or cryptographic binding. This allows unprivileged adversaries to register tools containing hidden imperative instructions within the descriptor text…

Securing the Model Context Protocol: Defending LLMs Against Tool Poisoning and Adversarial Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4

Healthcare Adversarial Consensus

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) for clinical decision support, specifically affecting architectures where a central "AI Doctor" agent relies on consensus or majority voting from assistant agents. The vulnerability, termed "Many-to-One Adversarial Consensus," allows a coalition of colluding adversarial agents to override the central agent's safety alignment and internal knowledge. By fabricating a false consensus (typically requiring $k…

Many-to-One Adversarial Consensus: Exposing Multi-Agent Collusion Risks in AI-Based Healthcare
Evaluated models: Llama 3.3 70B

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.