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

131 entries

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

Guardrail Helpful Mode Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A "Helpful Mode" role-confusion vulnerability exists in specific Large Language Model (LLM) safety guardrails, specifically Nemotron-Safety-8B and Granite-Guardian-3.2-5B. These models, designed to act as binary classifiers (outputting "Safe" or "Unsafe") for content moderation, can be manipulated via contextually framed adversarial prompts (e.g., academic research requests, corporate security scenarios, or roleplay) to abandon their classification objective. Instead of blocking the request…

Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Model Safety Guardrails Against Adversarial Attacks
Evaluated models: Nemotron Safety 8B, Granite Guardian 3.2 5B

Black-Box Graph-Text Node Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-enhanced Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), which integrate Large Language Model (LLM) feature encoders with graph message-passing architectures, are vulnerable to a black-box node injection attack known as "GraphTextack." This vulnerability exists because the joint model architecture creates a dual attack surface: the GNN component is sensitive to structural perturbations (changes in graph topology), while the LLM component is sensitive to semantic perturbations (adversarial phrasing).

GRAPHTEXTACK: A Realistic Black-Box Node Injection Attack on LLM-Enhanced GNNs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B

Multi-Agent Typo Vulnerability

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems employing ensemble sampling-and-voting strategies (specifically the "Agent Forest" framework) are vulnerable to adversarial input perturbations. While increasing the number of agents ($n \in \{1, \dots, 25\}$) improves accuracy on clean inputs, the system fails to mitigate the impact of synthetic punctuation noise and human-like typographical errors. Attackers can introduce surface-level perturbations—such as random punctuation insertion (10-50%…

More Agents Improve Math Problem Solving but Adversarial Robustness Gap Persists
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 3 4B+3 more
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Gemma 3 4B
  • Gemma 3 12B

RAG Poisoning Mitigation Downgrade

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A data poisoning vulnerability exists in the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) component of Large Language Model (LLM)-based Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS). The vulnerability allows an attacker to inject adversarially perturbed text into the system's knowledge base. By employing a transfer-learning attack using a surrogate model (e.g., BERT) and word-level perturbation algorithms (e.g., TextFooler), an attacker can generate semantic-preserving descriptions that alter the vector…

RAG-targeted Adversarial Attack on LLM-based Threat Detection and Mitigation Framework
Evaluated models: Not reported

LLM Factual MitM Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, LLaMA-2-13B, Mistral-7B, and Phi-3.5-mini, are vulnerable to Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) adversarial prompt injections that undermine factual recall. Termed the "$\chi$mera" (Chimera) attack framework, this vulnerability exists when an attacker intercepts and modifies user queries (e.g., via malicious browser extensions, compromised frontends, or proxy middleware) before they reach the victim model. By appending adversarial…

Injecting Falsehoods: Adversarial Man-in-the-Middle Attacks Undermining Factual Recall in LLMs
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 2 13B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Phi-3

Adversarial Self-Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a vulnerability to "adversarial conversational nudges," where the model abandons its internal factual knowledge to align with user-provided misinformation in closed domains (e.g., movies, books). Unlike standard hallucinations where a model lacks knowledge, this vulnerability occurs even when the model demonstrates—via separate self-consistency checks—that it correctly identifies the information as false. When a user creates a multi-turn context asserting…

What About the Scene With the Hitler Reference? HAUNT: A Framework to Probe LLMs' Self-consistency in Closed Domains Via Adversarial Nudge
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5, Claude Opus 4+4 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • Claude Opus 4
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • DeepSeek Reasoner
  • Grok 4

Latent Paraphrase Segmentation Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Reasoning segmentation models, which generate binary segmentation masks based on implicit text queries, are vulnerable to adversarial paraphrasing. This vulnerability allows an attacker to craft semantically equivalent and grammatically correct text prompts that significantly degrade the model's segmentation performance (measured by Intersection-over-Union, or IoU). The exploit utilizes a black-box, sentence-level optimization method (SPARTA) that operates within the continuous semantic latent…

SPARTA: Evaluating Reasoning Segmentation Robustness through Black-Box Adversarial Paraphrasing in Text Autoencoder Latent Space
Evaluated models: LISA 7B, LISA Explanatory 7B, LISA 13B+3 more
  • LISA 7B
  • LISA Explanatory 7B
  • LISA 13B
  • LISA Explanatory 13B
  • LISA++ 7B
  • GSVA 13B

Graph-LLM Semantic Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Graph-LLMs (Graph Neural Networks integrated with Large Language Models) utilized for representation learning on Text-Attributed Graphs (TAGs) are vulnerable to the Interpretable Multi-Dimensional Graph Attack (IMDGA). This vulnerability exists due to the non-decoupled nature of text encoding and graph message passing mechanisms. A black-box attacker can manipulate node classification predictions by executing a three-stage attack: (1) utilizing a word-level Topological SHAP module to identify…

Unveiling the Vulnerability of Graph-LLMs: An Interpretable Multi-Dimensional Adversarial Attack on TAGs
Evaluated models: Not reported

Adaptive Typographic Image Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal agents built on Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to adaptive typographic prompt injection attacks (AgentTypo). This vulnerability allows an attacker to execute indirect prompt injection by embedding adversarial text prompts directly into images (e.g., webpage screenshots, product photos) processed by the agent. Unlike standard visual adversarial attacks that rely on noise perturbation, this method utilizes the AgentTypo framework to perform black-box Bayesian…

AgentTypo: Adaptive Typographic Prompt Injection Attacks against Black-box Multimodal Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4V, GPT-4o Mini+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4V
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Claude 3 Opus

Single Query Dynamic Output

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) and multi-label text classification systems that allows for Textual Dynamic Outputs Attacks (TDOA). This technique enables hard-label black-box attacks against systems with variable or generative output spaces (where the number of labels or specific label tokens are not fixed). The attack functions by training a surrogate model on clustered coarse-grained labels derived from the victim model's fine-grained dynamic outputs. It subsequently…

Text Adversarial Attacks with Dynamic Outputs
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4.1+5 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4.1
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • DeepSeek V3
  • BERT
  • DistilBERT
  • RoBERTa

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.