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.

Helpful Agent Default Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the task-planning and execution logic of Large Language Model (LLM) agents, specifically within trip-planning and web-use agents. The vulnerability, identified as a "User-Mediated Attack," occurs because agents prioritize task completion and "helpfulness" over safety verification when processing content provided by the user. When a benign user forwards untrusted external content (e.g., promotional text containing phishing links or malicious instructions) to the agent…

Too Helpful to Be Safe: User-Mediated Attacks on Planning and Web-Use Agents
Evaluated models: Not reported

Uninvoked Tool Metadata Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents implementing the Model Context Protocol (MCP) are vulnerable to Implicit Tool Poisoning (ITP). This vulnerability allows an attacker to manipulate agent behavior by embedding malicious instructions within the metadata (specifically the natural language description) of a third-party tool. Unlike explicit tool poisoning, where the agent is tricked into invoking a malicious tool, ITP exploits the agent's contextual reasoning to force the invocation of a distinct…

MCP-ITP: An Automated Framework for Implicit Tool Poisoning in MCP
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o Mini, o1-mini+9 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • o1-mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • DeepSeek R1
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 8B Thinking
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Qwen 3 32B Thinking
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B Thinking

Adversarial Prompts Defeat Code Defenses

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

State-of-the-art secure code generation methods (Sven, SafeCoder, and PromSec) are vulnerable to adversarial prompt perturbations during inference, allowing for the bypass of security alignment mechanisms. The vulnerability stems from the models' reliance on surface-level textual pattern matching rather than semantic security reasoning. By employing simple prompt manipulations—such as Cue Inversion (flipping security directives), Naturalness Reframing (rewriting comments as novice questions)…

How Secure is Secure Code Generation? Adversarial Prompts Put LLM Defenses to the Test
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Mistral 7B

Optimized Indirect Prompt Injection Crosses Retrieval Barrier

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper describes a reproducible black-box indirect prompt injection evaluation for embedding-based RAG and agent systems. It separates a poisoned document into a retrieval-optimized trigger fragment and an instruction-bearing attack fragment, showing that one injected item can be surfaced by natural queries and then influence model output or agent behavior. These are paper-reported findings; they were not independently verified here.

Overcoming the Retrieval Barrier: Indirect Prompt Injection in the Wild for LLM Systems
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Qwen 3 0.6B+19 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Qwen 3 1.7B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen3-11B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Llama 3.2 3B
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Vicuna 7B
  • Vicuna 13B
  • gte-modernbert-base
  • OpenAI text-embedding-3-small
  • Voyage AI voyage-3.5-lite
  • Alibaba Cloud text-embedding-v4
  • contriever-msmarco
  • Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B
  • Qwen3-Embedding-4B
  • Qwen3-Embedding-8B

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

Sophisticated Deception Induces Misbelief

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a vulnerability to "hard-to-falsify" deceptive evidence injection, termed the "Facade of Truth." This vulnerability allows an attacker to override an LLM’s parametric knowledge (internal factual beliefs) by injecting sophisticated, iteratively refined fabricated evidence into the context window. Unlike overt misinformation which models typically reject, this attack utilizes a multi-agent adversarial framework (MisBelief) to generate evidence that mimics…

The Facade of Truth: Uncovering and Mitigating LLM Susceptibility to Deceptive Evidence
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-5, Llama 3 8B+1 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B

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

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

Single Word Video Corruption

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Text-to-Video (T2V) diffusion models are vulnerable to black-box adversarial prompt attacks that degrade output quality regarding semantic fidelity and temporal dynamics. This vulnerability is exploited via the T2VAttack framework, which utilizes two primary vector strategies: T2VAttack-S (Substitution) and T2VAttack-I (Insertion). T2VAttack-S leverages a greedy search to identify key semantic tokens and replaces them with high-similarity synonyms defined in lexical databases (e.g., WordNet)…

T2VAttack: Adversarial Attack on Text-to-Video Diffusion Models
Evaluated models: Not reported

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.