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

180 entries

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

Adversarial LLM Internal Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing internal security mechanisms based on linearly separable embeddings in intermediate layers are vulnerable to a generative adversarial attack. The CAVGAN framework exploits this vulnerability by generating adversarial perturbations that misclassify malicious inputs as benign, allowing the attacker to bypass the LLM's safety filters and elicit harmful outputs.

CAVGAN: Unifying Jailbreak and Defense of LLMs via Generative Adversarial Attacks on their Internal Representations
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 8B, Qwen 2.5 14B+2 more
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

Airborne Audio LLM Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Audio-based Large Language Models (ALLMs), specifically Qwen2-Audio, are vulnerable to over-the-air adversarial audio attacks. An attacker with white-box access can generate robust adversarial audio perturbations using gradient-based optimization combined with audio augmentation techniques (specifically SpecAugment, translation, and additive noise). These perturbations, when played through a speaker in the physical environment, manipulate the ALLM processing the audio via a microphone. This…

Attacker's Noise Can Manipulate Your Audio-based LLM in the Real World
Evaluated models: Not reported

Staged LLM Pipeline Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large language models (LLMs) protected by multi-stage safeguard pipelines (input and output classifiers) are vulnerable to staged adversarial attacks (STACK). STACK exploits weaknesses in individual components sequentially, combining jailbreaks for each classifier with a jailbreak for the underlying LLM to bypass the entire pipeline. Successful attacks achieve high attack success rates (ASR), even on datasets of particularly harmful queries.

STACK: Adversarial Attacks on LLM Safeguard Pipelines
Evaluated models: Claude Opus 4, Gemma 2 9B, GPT-4 Turbo+4 more
  • Claude Opus 4
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 14B

Fine-Tuning Safety Subspace Erosion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned via techniques such as Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) or Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) contain a vulnerability in how safety features are encoded within the model parameters. The safety-critical information is primarily stored in low-rank subspaces of the weight matrices (specifically, the difference between the base and aligned model weights). These low-rank subspaces are highly sensitive to parameter updates. Consequently…

Lox: Low-rank extrapolation robustifies llm safety against fine-tuning
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, Llama 2 7B, Mistral 7B

Universal Suffix Attention Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Transformer-based architectures, are vulnerable to an attention hijacking attack via optimized adversarial suffixes. The vulnerability resides in the shallow information flow mechanism of the attention layer, where specific token sequences (adversarial suffixes) can exert irregular and extreme dominance over the internal representation of the final chat template tokens immediately preceding generation. This "hijacking" suppresses the representation of…

Universal Jailbreak Suffixes Are Strong Attention Hijackers
Evaluated models: Gemma 2 2B IT, Qwen 2.5 0.5B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct+2 more
  • Gemma 2 2B IT
  • Qwen 2.5 0.5B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Hidden Contextual Bias

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multiple Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemma-2 27B, Gemma-3, and Mistral-Small-24B, exhibit a vulnerability where safety guardrails against demographic bias are bypassed through realistic contextual prompting. While prompt-based mitigations effectively suppress bias in simplified, controlled benchmarks, the introduction of realistic hiring contexts—specifically the combination of company culture descriptions (sourced from public career…

Robustly Improving LLM Fairness in Realistic Settings via Interpretability
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude Sonnet 4+5 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Mistral Small 24B Instruct 2501
  • Gemma 2 27B IT
  • Gemma 3 12B IT
  • Gemma 3 27B IT

LLM Judge Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Alibaba Cloud PAI-Judge and PAI-Judge-Plus are vulnerable to a composite adversarial attack that exploits attention mechanism limitations in Large Language Models (LLMs). An authenticated attacker can manipulate automated evaluation outcomes by appending a long, irrelevant text suffix (approximately 1000 to 2000+ characters) to a response containing adversarial perturbations. This "long-suffix" strategy overwhelms the judge model's context window, causing the attention mechanism to degrade and…

LLMs Cannot Reliably Judge (Yet?): A Comprehensive Assessment on the Robustness of LLM-as-a-Judge
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.3 70B+3 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Mistral 7B
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

JailFlip Implicit Harm

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the safety alignment mechanisms of Large Language Models (LLMs) (including GPT-4, Claude 3, Gemini, and Qwen families) leading to "Implicit Harm." Unlike traditional jailbreaks that use overtly harmful queries, this vulnerability allows remote attackers to coerce the model into providing factually incorrect, plausible, and dangerous responses to benign-looking inputs. By employing "JailFlip" techniques—specifically constructed affirmative-type or denial-type queries…

Beyond Jailbreaks: Revealing Stealthier and Broader LLM Security Risks Stemming from Alignment Failures
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 Mini, GPT-4o+3 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Qwen Plus
  • Qwen Turbo

Twin Prompt Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A white-box vulnerability allows attackers with full model access to bypass LLM safety alignments by identifying and pruning parameters responsible for rejecting harmful prompts. The attack leverages a novel "twin prompt" technique to differentiate safety-related parameters from those essential for model utility, performing fine-grained pruning with minimal impact on overall model functionality.

TwinBreak: Jailbreaking LLM Security Alignments based on Twin Prompts
Evaluated models: DeepSeek 7B, Gemma 2 27B, Gemma 2 2B+13 more
  • DeepSeek 7B
  • Gemma 2 27B
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • Gemma 3 1B
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Llama 2 70B
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B
  • Qwen 2.5 3B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

Pretraining Modality Gap Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) that utilize a projection layer (adapter) to bridge a vision encoder and a Large Language Model (LLM) contain a vulnerability stemming from the "Modality Gap"—a distributional distance between image and text token embeddings. This gap allows the visual modality to bypass the safety alignment (RLHF/instruction tuning) of the backbone LLM. Attackers can trigger harmful, toxic, or illegal responses to queries that would be refused in text-only contexts by…

Bootstrapping LLM Robustness for VLM Safety via Reducing the Pretraining Modality Gap
Evaluated models: LLaVA 7B, Vicuna 7B

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.