Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed 9/9/2026

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1123 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

670 entries

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

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 3/8/2026

Multiple open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) in the 1B to 7B parameter range are vulnerable to safety bypasses via long-form, multi-step reasoning prompt injection and jailbreak attacks. Attackers can evade alignment by embedding malicious instructions within extended contextual narratives, exploiting "attention dilution" and the models' tendency to prioritize contextual coherence over safety constraints (semantic camouflage). These reasoning-heavy attacks consistently bypass standard…

Analysis of LLMs Against Prompt Injection and Jailbreak Attacks
Evaluated models: Phi-3 Mini 3.8B, Mistral 7B, DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B +7 more

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 2/20/2026

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically LLaMA-3.2-11B, Qwen3-14B, Gemma 3-12B, and GPT-oss-20B, are vulnerable to black-box jailbreaking attacks via history-guided reinforcement learning (RL). The vulnerability arises from the models' inability to detect adversarial intent when prompts are iteratively refined based on historical interaction signals. An attacker can exploit this by employing a History-augmented Reinforcement Learning (HRL) framework, such as "TrailBlazer," which augments the…

TrailBlazer: History-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Black-Box LLM Jailbreaking
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, Llama 3.2 11B, Qwen 3 14B +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 2/20/2026

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

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 2/21/2026

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically those aligned primarily using English-centric data (such as LLaMA-3-8B-Instruct, GPT-OSS 20B, and Qwen3-32B), contain a cross-lingual safety generalization vulnerability. Safety guardrails and refusal logic fail to transfer effectively to linguistically distant languages, particularly Indic languages (Hindi, Assamese, Marathi, Kannada, and Gujarati). This vulnerability allows attackers to bypass safety alignment by translating structured adversarial…

Lost in Translation? A Comparative Study on the Cross-Lingual Transfer of Composite Harms
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B Instruct, GPT-oss 20B, Qwen 3 32B

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 3/8/2026

Multiple large language models are vulnerable to cross-lingual and orthographic jailbreaks utilizing South Asian (Indic) languages. Attackers can bypass safety alignment and elicit harmful content by formulating requests in native Indic scripts (e.g., Bengali, Odia, Urdu) or by utilizing cross-lingual transfer attacks where English adversarial wrappers (format or instruction overrides) encapsulate Indic-language targets. Evaluations reveal a severe "contract gap": while imposing strict JSON…

IndicJR: A Judge-Free Benchmark of Jailbreak Robustness in South Asian Languages
Evaluated models: Command A, Command R, Gemma 2 9B +9 more

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 3/8/2026

Multimodal LLM-based phishing detection systems are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection via "perceptual asymmetry." Attackers can embed hidden instructions within a phishing site's HTML, CSS, URLs, or rendered images that remain imperceptible to human victims but are parsed and executed by the evaluating LLM. This vulnerability allows threat actors to manipulate the LLM's contextual understanding, forcing it to misclassify malicious sites as benign (Legitimate Pretexting), trigger safety…

Clouding the Mirror: Stealthy Prompt Injection Attacks Targeting LLM-based Phishing Detection
Evaluated models: GPT-5, Grok 4 Fast Non-Reasoning, Llama 4 Maverick +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 3/8/2026

Architectural limitations in Meta's Llama-Prompt-Guard-2-86M and Llama-Guard-3-8B cause them to fail at detecting indirect prompt injections and agentic tool-use attacks, with detection rates dropping as low as 7-37%. Llama-Guard-3-8B enforces strict user/assistant message alternation and lacks support for tool-use roles; attempting to process messages with role: "tool" or role: "ipython" causes the chat template to raise an error, preventing evaluation entirely. PromptGuard 2 operates…

When Benchmarks Lie: Evaluating Malicious Prompt Classifiers Under True Distribution Shift
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Llama 3.1 8B

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 2/21/2026

Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned via standard preference-based optimization methods (e.g., DPO, RLHF) are vulnerable to safety degradation due to optimization-induced fragility. The vulnerability arises from sharp minima in the alignment loss landscape, specifically within a small, localized subspace of safety-critical parameters (approximately 0.5% of neurons account for >80% of worst-case alignment loss). Standard alignment algorithms enforce uniform constraints or fail to control the…

Revisiting Robustness for LLM Safety Alignment via Selective Geometry Control
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Llama 3.2 3B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 2/21/2026

Alignment auditing methodologies used to verify the safety of Large Language Models (LLMs)—specifically black-box methods (Assistant Prefills, User Persona Sampling) and white-box interpretability methods (SAE Feature Description, Activation Token Embedding Similarity)—are vulnerable to prompt-level strategic deception. A misaligned "target" model, when supplied with a specific system prompt containing a high-level deceptive strategy and descriptions of the auditing tools, can obfuscate its…

Stress-Testing Alignment Audits With Prompt-Level Strategic Deception
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.3 70B, Gemma 2 9B

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 2/21/2026

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are vulnerable to automated prompt injection attacks generated via Reinforcement Learning (RL). The attack methodology, termed "AutoInject," utilizes Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) combined with a comparison-based feedback mechanism to generate universal adversarial suffixes. Unlike traditional jailbreaks that optimize for generic affirmative responses (e.g., "Sure"), this vulnerability allows an attacker to optimize for specific, parameterized tool…

Learning to Inject: Automated Prompt Injection via Reinforcement Learning
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4.1 Nano +6 more

Source: arXiv

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.