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

140 entries

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

Visual prompt injection crosses document trust boundaries

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Untrusted document images can redirect vision-language agents across instruction and tool-authorization boundaries. Repeat-After-Me evaluates six victim models on constructed document tasks.

Repeat-After-Me: Black-Box Adaptive Visual Prompt Injection
Evaluated models: claude-opus-4-7, GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro+3 more
  • claude-opus-4-7
  • GPT-5.5
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro
  • Qwen3.6-27B
  • Qwen3-VL 32B Instruct
  • InternVL3.5 38B Instruct

Automated indirect prompt injection against tool-calling agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper presents a concrete, reproducible security evaluation in which attacker-controlled instructions embedded in retrieved external content steer stateful, tool-calling LLM agents toward unauthorized actions. It adapts white-box GCG and black-box TAP to AgentDojo and evaluates single-task and task-universal attacks across 80 task pairs in four domains. The reported results show that semantic black-box optimization can discover functional prompt injections more effectively than…

Assessing Automated Prompt Injection Attacks in Agentic Environments
Evaluated models: Gemma3-4B Instruct, Qwen 3 4B Instruct, GPT-5+6 more
  • Gemma3-4B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 4B Instruct
  • GPT-5
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Qwen3-235B-A22B (MoE)
  • Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking (MoE)
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash

Diverse VLA Linguistic Fragility

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models suffer from a severe linguistic fragility vulnerability where semantically equivalent but structurally complex adversarial instructions cause catastrophic failures in visual grounding and geometric reasoning. Attackers can reliably induce physical execution failures in robotic manipulation tasks by applying semantic-preserving linguistic variations, such as synonymous rephrasing, syntactic restructuring, or the addition of fine-grained compositional…

Uncovering Linguistic Fragility in Vision-Language-Action Models via Diversity-Aware Red Teaming
Evaluated models: Pi-Zero, OpenVLA 7B, 3D-Diffuser Actor

Agent Goal Reframing Exploit

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM agents deployed with tool access are vulnerable to goal-reframing prompt injection, which reliably bypasses explicit rule-following and safety instructions. By injecting language that recasts a standard task as a "puzzle," "Capture The Flag (CTF)," or "easter egg" hunt, an attacker can manipulate the agent's task-frame alignment. The agent does not override security rules; instead, it reinterprets exploitative actions—such as exploring hidden directories, bypassing test runners, or reading…

Mapping the Exploitation Surface: A 10,000-Trial Taxonomy of What Makes LLM Agents Exploit Vulnerabilities
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4, GPT-4.1, GPT-5 Mini+4 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • o4-mini
  • DeepSeek V3
  • GPT-5.4-mini
  • GPT-5.4 Nano

Indirect Agent Privilege Exposure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Autonomous LLM agents deployed in dynamic, multi-step tool-calling environments are highly vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injections (IPI) embedded in external content. Surface-level defensive prompts and monitoring mechanisms (such as Prompt Warning, the Sandwich Method, Spotlighting, Keyword Filtering, and LLM-as-a-Judge) consistently fail to prevent exploitation and occasionally exacerbate the vulnerability by introducing adversarial distraction. While compromised agents exhibit…

Your Agent is More Brittle Than You Think: Uncovering Indirect Injection Vulnerabilities in Agentic LLMs
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 14B, Qwen 2.5 32B, Qwen 3 4B+6 more
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • GLM 4 9B
  • Gemma 3 12B
  • Mistral 7B

Agent Implicit Doc Execution

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based coding agents are vulnerable to Document-Driven Implicit Payload Execution (DDIPE) via supply-chain poisoning of third-party agent skills. Attackers can embed malicious logic directly into legitimate-looking code examples and configuration templates within skill documentation files (e.g., SKILL.md). Because coding agents ingest this metadata into their context windows and treat the documentation as an authoritative reference, the underlying LLM silently reproduces and executes the…

Supply-Chain Poisoning Attacks Against LLM Coding Agent Skill Ecosystems
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, GLM-4.7, MiniMax M2.5+2 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • GLM-4.7
  • MiniMax M2.5
  • GPT-5.4
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro

Jailbreak Saturates Alignment Defenses

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A cognitive overload vulnerability in OpenAI gpt-oss-20b allows attackers to bypass instruction hierarchy and deliberative alignment safety mechanisms using "Compound Jailbreaks." By combining multiple non-contradictory but cognitively demanding tasks within a single prompt, the attack saturates the finite reasoning resources allocated for safety judgments. Because the model's safety training relies on probabilistic redistribution rather than capability elimination, this cognitive exhaustion…

Generalization Limits of Reinforcement Learning Alignment
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B

Observation Poisons Agent Memory

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Memory-augmented LLM web agents utilizing raw trajectory memory are vulnerable to Environment-injected Trajectory-based Agent Memory Poisoning (eTAMP). Attackers can embed malicious instructions within user-generated web content (e.g., product pages, forum posts). When the agent processes this content during a routine task, the instructions are passively ingested into its raw trajectory memory. During subsequent, entirely separate tasks on different websites, semantic retrieval mechanisms pull…

Poison Once, Exploit Forever: Environment-Injected Memory Poisoning Attacks on Web Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-5 Mini, GPT-5.2, GPT-oss 120B+3 more
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5.2
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B
  • Qwen3-VL-32B
  • Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Agent Skill Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based personal agents are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) defense bypasses via declarative context reframing and implicit file provenance trust. Attackers can bypass agent safety filters by phrasing malicious instructions as declarative compliance alerts rather than imperative commands. Because agents are designed to report discrepancies as expected behavior, declarative framing bypasses intent-sensitive safety mechanisms. Additionally, attackers can exploit the agent's…

ClawSafety: Safe LLMs, Unsafe Agents
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek V3+2 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • DeepSeek V3
  • Kimi K2.5
  • GPT-5.1

LLM Judge Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Generative reward models deployed as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) evaluators contain a logic bypass vulnerability where superficial "master key" inputs trigger false positive rewards regardless of actual response quality. Instead of evaluating the candidate's output, large judge models are inadvertently triggered by specific token sequences to solve the prompt independently. This allows malicious actors or policy models undergoing reinforcement learning to consistently game the reward signal by…

Security in LLM-as-a-Judge: A Comprehensive SoK
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, o1, Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • o1
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct

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.