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

Research findings

985 entries

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

LoRA Bypass Safety Training

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Low-rank adaptation (LoRA) fine-tuning allows efficient circumvention of safety training in large language models (LLMs), such as Llama 2-Chat 70B, resulting in significantly reduced refusal rates for harmful prompts while maintaining general performance capabilities. Attackers can use LoRA with a small, synthetic dataset of harmful instructions and responses to effectively undo safety measures implemented during the model's training.

Lora fine-tuning efficiently undoes safety training in llama 2-chat 70b
Evaluated models: Llama 2 13B Chat, Llama 2 70B Chat, Llama 2 7B Chat

AutoDAN: Interpretable LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

AutoDAN is an interpretable gradient-based adversarial attack that generates readable prompts to bypass perplexity filters and jailbreak LLMs. The attack crafts prompts that elicit harmful behaviors while maintaining sufficient readability to avoid detection by existing perplexity-based defenses. This is achieved through a left-to-right token-by-token generation process optimizing for both jailbreaking success and prompt readability.

Autodan: Automatic and interpretable adversarial attacks on large language models
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, Guanaco 7B+4 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Guanaco 7B
  • Llama 2 Chat
  • Pythia 12B
  • Vicuna 13B
  • Vicuna 7B

Parametric Model Unalignment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) employing Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and instruction tuning methods may exhibit superficial safety guardrails vulnerable to parametric red-teaming attacks. Fine-tuning the model on a dataset of harmful prompts and their corresponding helpful (but harmful) responses can bypass built-in safety mechanisms, resulting in the model generating unsafe outputs. This vulnerability is demonstrated by achieving an 88% success rate in eliciting harmful…

Language model unalignment: Parametric red-teaming to expose hidden harms and biases
Evaluated models: Claude 1, Claude 2, GPT-4+6 more
  • Claude 1
  • Claude 2
  • GPT-4
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Vicuna 1 7B
  • Vicuna 1 13B
  • Vicuna 2 7B
  • Vicuna 2 13B

Self-Fooling LLM Prompt Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A prompt-based adversarial attack, termed PromptAttack, can cause Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate incorrect outputs by manipulating the input prompt. PromptAttack crafts prompts that include the original input, an attack objective (to generate semantically similar but misclassified output), and attack guidance with instructions for character, word, or sentence-level perturbations. This allows an attacker to manipulate an LLM's response without direct access to its internal parameters…

An LLM can Fool Itself: A Prompt-Based Adversarial Attack
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo

LLM Red Teaming Framework

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in large language models (LLMs) allows attackers to craft malicious prompts that induce the LLM to generate harmful content, such as fraudulent material, racist remarks, or instructions for illegal activities. The vulnerability arises from the LLM's inability to reliably distinguish between benign and malicious instructions disguised within seemingly innocuous prompts. Attackers can exploit this by leveraging techniques like obfuscation, code injection/payload splitting, and…

Attack prompt generation for red teaming and defending large language models
Evaluated models: Not reported

Hidden Prompt Injection Attacks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to Compositional Instruction Attacks (CIA), where malicious prompts are embedded within seemingly harmless instructions. This allows attackers to bypass safety mechanisms and elicit harmful responses from the model, even if the individual components of the prompt would be flagged as safe. The attack exploits the model's inability to correctly identify underlying malicious intent within composite instructions.

Prompt packer: Deceiving llms through compositional instruction with hidden attacks
Evaluated models: ChatGLM2 6B, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4

Automated LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to prompt-based jailbreaks, allowing adversaries to bypass safety guardrails and elicit undesirable outputs. The Prompt Automatic Iterative Refinement (PAIR) algorithm efficiently generates these jailbreaks using a limited number of black-box queries to the target LLM. The vulnerability stems from the LLM's inability to robustly handle adversarial prompts crafted through iterative refinement, even without white-box access to its internal mechanisms.

Jailbreaking black box large language models in twenty queries
Evaluated models: Claude Instant 1.2, Claude 2.1, Gemini Pro+6 more
  • Claude Instant 1.2
  • Claude 2.1
  • Gemini Pro
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo-1106
  • GPT-4-0125-preview
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama Guard
  • Mixtral 8x7B Instruct
  • Vicuna 13B v1.5

Decoding-Based LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a generation exploitation attack that leverages variations in decoding hyperparameters and sampling methods to bypass safety mechanisms. Manipulating these parameters, even subtly, can drastically increase the likelihood of the model generating harmful or unsafe outputs, even in models previously deemed "aligned." The attack is effective even when removing only the system prompt.

Catastrophic jailbreak of open-source llms via exploiting generation
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo

In-Context LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to In-Context Attacks (ICA) and susceptible to mitigation via In-Context Defense (ICD). ICA leverages a small number of harmful demonstration examples within a prompt to elicit harmful responses from the LLM, even if it is otherwise safety-aligned. ICD counteracts ICA by prepending safe demonstration examples to the prompt, effectively reducing the likelihood of harmful output. The effectiveness of both ICA and ICD is demonstrated across multiple LLMs.

Jailbreak and guard aligned language models with only few in-context demonstrations
Evaluated models: GPT-4 0613, Llama 2 7B Chat, Mistral-7B-v2+4 more
  • GPT-4 0613
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Mistral-7B-v2
  • Mixtral 8x7B
  • Qwen-7B-v2
  • Vicuna 13B v1.5
  • Vicuna 7B v1.5

Fine-tuning Compromises LLM Safety

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Fine-tuning aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) on a small number of adversarially crafted examples, or even on benign datasets, can compromise their safety alignment, leading to the generation of harmful or inappropriate content. This vulnerability exploits the few-shot learning capabilities of LLMs, allowing attackers to override existing safety mechanisms with minimal effort and cost. Even unintentional fine-tuning with seemingly benign datasets can result in unintended safety degradation.

Fine-tuning aligned language models compromises safety, even when users do not intend to!
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, Llama 2 13B Chat, Llama 2 70B Chat+2 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Llama 2 70B Chat
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama-1

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.