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

13 entries

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

Historical reasoning-envelope isolation failures

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The authors report historical isolation failures in client-held encrypted reasoning blocks across compatible provider API contexts.

Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs
Evaluated models: Fable 5, Opus 4.8, Sonnet 5+15 more
  • Fable 5
  • Opus 4.8
  • Sonnet 5
  • Sonnet 4.6
  • Sonnet 4.5
  • Haiku 4.5
  • GPT-5.6 Sol
  • GPT-5.6-terra
  • GPT-5.6 Luna
  • GPT-5
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • o4-mini
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro
  • Gemini 3 Pro
  • Gemini Robotics 1.6
  • Gemini 3.5 Flash
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

Black-Box System Prompt Leakage in Real-World LLM Applications

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper reports a reproducible black-box evaluation showing that adversarial user queries can cause deployed LLM applications to reveal hidden system prompts. In the authors’ measurement of 1,200 applications across six commercial platforms, 1,064 applications leaked prompt content (81.0%–93.5% per anonymized platform). This is a paper-reported result, not independently verified here. LeakBench and the official artifact repository provide defensive benchmark materials for controlled testing…

Understanding and Mitigating Prompt Leaking Attacks in Real-World LLM-Based Applications
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3+5 more
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3
  • Qwen 3 4B Instruct 2507
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B Instruct-2507

Agent Lifecycle Compound Threats

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

OpenClaw is vulnerable to persistent memory poisoning, allowing an attacker to manipulate the agent's long-term memory store (MEMORY.md) via prompt injection. Because the autonomous agent continuously integrates this memory file as context for all subsequent reasoning and task planning, injected payloads act as durable behavioral constraints. This allows an attacker to persistently alter the agent's core policy, manipulate tool selection, and hijack future sessions without any further…

Taming openclaw: Security analysis and mitigation of autonomous llm agent threats
Evaluated models: Not reported

Web-Triggered Silent Egress

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Agentic LLM systems that automatically preview URLs or extract web metadata are vulnerable to implicit prompt injection, resulting in silent data exfiltration ("silent egress"). Attackers can embed adversarial instructions in unobserved web elements, such as HTML <title> tags, <meta> descriptions, or Open Graph metadata. When a user requests a summary of the URL—or when the agent automatically unfurls a linked URL in a chat—the system fetches the malicious page and flattens this metadata into…

Silent Egress: When Implicit Prompt Injection Makes LLM Agents Leak Without a Trace
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 7B

GPT Tool Misuse

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in OpenAI's Custom GPTs platform where the lack of effective isolation between the system context ("Expert Prompt"), external knowledge retrieval, and user input allows for unauthorized information disclosure and tool misuse. By employing specific prompt injection techniques—including Hex injection, Many-shot prefix attacks, and Knowledge Poisoning (uploading malicious files)—an attacker can bypass safety guardrails. This results in the extraction of proprietary system…

An Empirical Study on the Security Vulnerabilities of GPTs
Evaluated models: DALL-E

Leaked Bits Collapse Attack Queries

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically variants of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, OLMo-2, and Llama-4, are vulnerable to accelerated adaptive adversarial attacks due to excessive information leakage in observable output signals. When these models expose "thinking processes" (Chain-of-Thought traces) or token-level log-probabilities (logits) to the end user, they leak significant mutual information $I(Z;T)$ regarding the model's safety state or hidden instructions. This leakage allows adaptive attack…

Bits Leaked per Query: Information-Theoretic Bounds on Adversarial Attacks against LLMs
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1, GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18, Llama 4 Maverick 17B+4 more
  • DeepSeek R1
  • GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18
  • Llama 4 Maverick 17B
  • Llama 4 Scout 17B
  • OLMo 2 7B-1124
  • OLMo 2 13B-1124
  • OLMo 2 32B-0325

Multimodal Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT-4o, LLaMA-3, and GPT-3.5-Turbo, are vulnerable to multimodal prompt injection attacks. These models fail to distinguish between system-level instructions and user-provided content within the context window. Attackers can exploit this by embedding malicious instructions in direct text, indirect sources (such as third-party webpages or PDFs), or visual inputs (images). Successful exploitation results in the model prioritizing the injected adversarial…

Multimodal Prompt Injection Attacks: Risks and Defenses for Modern LLMs
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 3 8B+1 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Mistral Large 24B

Agent Tool Metadata Lure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the tool selection mechanisms of Large Language Model (LLM) agents, identified as the "Attractive Metadata Attack" (AMA). This flaw allows an adversary to manipulate the metadata (names, descriptions, and parameter schemas) of malicious external tools to statistically maximize the likelihood of their selection by the agent, without requiring prompt injection or access to model internals. The vulnerability exploits the agent’s semantic scoring function used to map user…

Attractive Metadata Attack: Inducing LLM Agents to Invoke Malicious Tools
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct+2 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct
  • Gemma 3 27B IT
  • Qwen 3 32B

Enterprise Multi-Turn Data Exfiltration

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) systems integrated with private enterprise data, such as those using Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), are vulnerable to multi-stage prompt inference attacks. An attacker can use a sequence of individually benign-looking queries to incrementally extract confidential information from the LLM's context. Each query appears innocuous in isolation, bypassing safety filters designed to block single malicious prompts. By chaining these queries, the attacker can…

Multi-Stage Prompt Inference Attacks on Enterprise LLM Systems
Evaluated models: GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4+1 more
  • GPT-2
  • GPT-3
  • GPT-4
  • RoBERTa

LLM System Prompt Extraction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), including Llama-3, Falcon-3, Gemma-2, and GPT-4 variants, are susceptible to system prompt extraction attacks. The vulnerability exists due to the models' instruction-following nature, which allows remote attackers to bypass safety guardrails and retrieve the model's hidden system configuration (system prompt) verbatim. This is successfully exploited using an "Extended Sandwich Attack," where an adversarial extraction command is embedded between benign questions…

System Prompt Extraction Attacks and Defenses in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4, GPT-4o, Llama 3 8B+2 more
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Falcon 7B
  • Gemma 2 9B

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.