Language Model Security Database

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…

Audio Large Language Models (ALLMs) integrated into voice agent systems for high-stakes domains (banking, IT support, logistics) are vulnerable to multimodal adversarial attacks via spoken interaction. Adversaries can exploit the model's inherent compliance and contextual awareness through multi-turn dialogue to bypass authentication safeguards, escalate privileges (e.g., unauthorized credit limit increases), exfiltrate sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and poison…

A vulnerability exists in the function-calling mechanisms of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically identified as "Renaming Tool Poisoning" (RTP). This attack vector exploits the model's visibility into both the natural language description and the actual code implementation of available tools. By embedding a two-part adversarial payload—one in the tool description directing focus to implementation variables, and another within the tool's source code variable…

Backdoor-based fingerprinting mechanisms used for Intellectual Property (IP) protection in Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to evasion when deployed in model ensemble configurations. The vulnerability arises because fingerprint triggers elicit specific, high-probability tokens or responses in a protected model that are statistically improbable in unprotected or differently-fingerprinted auxiliary models. Attackers can exploit this statistical discrepancy without accessing model…

"LLM-as-a-Judge" systems and automated scientific review frameworks (such as OpenReviewer, DeepReview, and institutional deployments like AAAI’s AI-powered assessment) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection via adversarial PDF manipulation. Attackers can embed hidden instructions—specifically using white font (1pt) or obfuscated semantics—within submission documents. When these PDFs are parsed (typically via OCR or tools like MinerU converting to Markdown) and processed by the LLM, the…

Large Language Model (LLM) agents utilizing the Model Context Protocol (MCP) are vulnerable to semantic injection attacks via adversarial tool descriptors. The vulnerability arises because MCP implementations inject natural language tool metadata (descriptions, schemas) directly into the model's reasoning context without semantic sanitization or cryptographic binding. This allows unprivileged adversaries to register tools containing hidden imperative instructions within the descriptor text…

Multiple open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs)—specifically those prioritizing capability over safety alignment—exhibit a critical vulnerability to adaptive multi-turn prompt injection and jailbreak attacks. While these models effectively reject isolated, single-turn adversarial inputs (averaging ~13.11% Attack Success Rate), they fail to maintain safety guardrails and policy enforcement across extended conversational contexts. By leveraging iterative strategies such as "Crescendo" (gradual…

Agentic AI browsers and LLM-powered browser extensions are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection via the processing of untrusted web content. The vulnerability arises when the AI agent ingests the Document Object Model (DOM), including hidden elements, HTML comments, metadata, and accessibility labels, into its context window to perform tasks such as page summarization or autonomous navigation. Because the LLM cannot distinguish between system instructions and untrusted external data, an…

AI code agents are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks that cause them to generate or complete malicious code. The vulnerability is significantly amplified when a base Large Language Model (LLM) is integrated into an agentic framework that uses multi-step planning and tool-use. Initial safety refusals by the LLM are frequently overturned during subsequent planning or self-correction steps within the agent's reasoning loop.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based Automated Program Repair (APR) systems—such as SWE-agent, OpenHands, and AutoCodeRover—are vulnerable to adversarial manipulation via crafted bug reports. These systems accept unvetted natural language issue descriptions as trusted input to synthesize code patches. An attacker can exploit this trust by submitting semantically plausible but malicious bug reports designed to mislead the APR agent. By leveraging the semantic gap between natural language…