Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed 9/9/2026

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1123 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

12 entries

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

Published 8/11/2026
Analyzed 8/13/2026

SRE-Bench evaluates whether cybersecurity agents can recover the behavior of realistic binary-only software without relying on source-code memorization. The authors construct 19 private programs, 44 anti-analysis primitives, 262 binary instances, and 1,572 deterministic grading tasks covering security-relevant reverse-engineering scenarios.

The Next Challenge for Agentic Cybersecurity: A Realistic, Contamination-Free Reverse Engineering Benchmark
Evaluated models: GPT-5.6 Sol, Claude-Opus-5, GPT-5.5 +2 more

Source: arXiv

Published 8/4/2026
Analyzed 8/13/2026

SkillSentry evaluates third-party agent skills by constructing source-grounded decoy environments and comparing matched executions with and without the tested skill. The method requires completed, observable, skill-attributed side effects rather than treating suspicious text, ordinary privileged operations, or unexecuted paths as proven malicious behavior.

SkillSentry: Adaptive Honey Worlds for Dynamic Safety Testing of Agent Skills
Evaluated models: DeepSeek V4-Pro

Source: arXiv

VulnGym measures whether coding agents can locate and explain repository-level security vulnerabilities from realistic advisory and source-code context. The benchmark contains 184 reviewed advisories, 408 line-annotated vulnerability entries, and 23 repositories, with separate end-to-end detection and oracle-conditioned localization tasks.

VulnGym: Benchmarking Coding Agents for Repository-Level Vulnerability Detection
Evaluated models: DeepSeek V4 Flash, GLM 5.2, MiniMax-M3 +4 more

Source: arXiv

Published 3/1/2026
Analyzed 4/10/2026

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

Source: arXiv

Published 3/1/2026
Analyzed 4/11/2026

The OpenClaw autonomous agent framework lacks execution sandboxing, running agents directly on the host machine with the disk and system privileges of the host user. This architecture allows attackers to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) and arbitrary data exfiltration via Indirect Prompt Injection. By embedding malicious instructions within external data sources (e.g., scraped web pages or uploaded documents), an attacker can hijack the agent's planning capabilities to sequentially chain…

Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw
Evaluated models: Not reported

Source: arXiv

Published 2/1/2026
Analyzed 2/21/2026

LLM serving frameworks utilizing continuous batching and PagedAttention (such as vLLM, SGLang, and Orca) are vulnerable to a resource exhaustion Denial-of-Service attack known as "Fill and Squeeze." An unprivileged remote attacker can exploit the deterministic state transitions of the scheduler's memory management to induce severe latency or service denial. The attack leverages a side-channel vulnerability where Inter-Token Latency (ITL) correlates linearly with global KV-cache usage due to…

Rethinking Latency Denial-of-Service: Attacking the LLM Serving Framework, Not the Model
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 8B, Gemma 3 12B IT, DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 2/22/2026

A vulnerability exists in the "Adaptive Trust Weighting" mechanism of the Cost-Aware Proof of Quality (PoQ) protocol for decentralized LLM inference. The protocol updates evaluator trust weights based on the deviation of a submitted score from the consensus score of the current round. Because the consensus score is derived from the very scores being evaluated (a self-referential feedback loop), the mechanism fails to distinguish between honest and coordinated malicious evaluators…

Adaptive and Robust Cost-Aware Proof of Quality for Decentralized LLM Inference Networks
Evaluated models: Not reported

Source: arXiv

Published 1/1/2026
Analyzed 1/14/2026

A malicious model supply chain vulnerability exists involving a technique termed Adversarial Contrastive Learning (ACL) for Large Language Model (LLM) quantization attacks. This vulnerability allows an attacker to publish a model that appears benign and preserves high utility in full precision (e.g., BF16 or FP32) but exhibits malicious behaviors—such as jailbreak, over-refusal, or advertisement injection—immediately upon zero-shot quantization (e.g., INT8, FP4, or NF4).

Adversarial Contrastive Learning for LLM Quantization Attacks
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct +1 more

Source: arXiv

Published 12/1/2025
Analyzed 2/21/2026

A Denial-of-Service (DoS) vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) inference services where specially crafted input prompts can trigger excessively long or infinite generation loops ("infinite thinking"). This vulnerability, identified as "ThinkTrap," utilizes derivative-free optimization (CMA-ES) within a continuous surrogate embedding space to circumvent the discrete nature of token inputs. By optimizing a low-dimensional latent vector and projecting it to token sequences, an…

ThinkTrap: Denial-of-Service Attacks against Black-box LLM Services via Infinite Thinking
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, Lumimaid 70B, o4-mini +4 more

Source: arXiv

Published 7/1/2025
Analyzed 8/16/2025

Large Language Models (LLMs) equipped with native code interpreters are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via resource exhaustion. An attacker can craft a single prompt that causes the interpreter to execute code that depletes CPU, memory, or disk resources. The vulnerability is particularly pronounced when a resource-intensive task is framed within a plausibly benign or socially-engineered context ("indirect prompts"), which significantly lowers the model's likelihood of refusal compared…

Running in CIRCLE? A Simple Benchmark for LLM Code Interpreter Security
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.0 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Pro +5 more

Source: arXiv

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.