Language Model Security Database

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreak technique termed "Priority Hacking." Adversaries can bypass safety alignments by exploiting the model's internal priority graph, where certain abstract values (e.g., justice, public health) implicitly outweigh general safety restrictions within specific contexts. By crafting a deceptive prompt that frames a malicious request as a necessary action in service of a higher-priority benign value, attackers engineer a value conflict. The…

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…

A vulnerability in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems utilizing safety-aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to perform a highly transferable Denial-of-Service (DoS) or "blocking" attack. By injecting a single maliciously crafted document into the RAG knowledge base, attackers can force the LLM to refuse to answer benign queries. Unlike previous attacks that rely on explicit instruction injection or high-perplexity adversarial suffixes—which modern models easily…

Hybrid monitoring protocols for Large Language Model (LLM) agents, specifically those that strictly evaluate both Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and tool usage (such as LlamaFirewall's AlignmentCheck and Extract-and-Evaluate monitors), are vulnerable to "Agent-as-a-Proxy" indirect prompt injection attacks. Unlike standard injections that target the agent, this attack targets the monitoring model itself. By embedding a malicious string—optimized via an algorithm named Parallel-GCG—into…

A vulnerability in Large Language Model-based Retrieval (LLMR) systems allows attackers to intentionally hide specific documents from being retrieved (e.g., in RAG pipelines or search engines) by appending a small number of adversarially crafted, query-agnostic tokens. The attack operates in a complete black-box setting: it requires no knowledge of the victim's queries, the target retrieval model's parameters, or the underlying document corpus. By utilizing Document-Query Adversarial (DQ-A)…

Text scoring models, including dense retrievers, rerankers, and reward models, are vulnerable to score manipulation attacks via search-based discrete perturbations and content injection. An attacker can systematically modify candidate texts using rudimentary string manipulations, gradient-guided token swaps (e.g., HotFlip), masked language modeling (MLM) swaps, or query/sentence injections to spuriously increase model scores. This structural failure condition allows an irrelevant passage or a…

A vulnerability exists in frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) where in-context information (e.g., provided via Retrieval-Augmented Generation) completely overrides parametric safety guardrails when processing counterfactual or adversarial medical evidence. When a prompt contains fabricated clinical context asserting the medical efficacy of toxic substances, illicit drugs, or nonsensical items, the LLM suppresses its internal knowledge of the substance's toxicity. Internal representation…

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a vulnerability to "hard-to-falsify" deceptive evidence injection, termed the "Facade of Truth." This vulnerability allows an attacker to override an LLM’s parametric knowledge (internal factual beliefs) by injecting sophisticated, iteratively refined fabricated evidence into the context window. Unlike overt misinformation which models typically reject, this attack utilizes a multi-agent adversarial framework (MisBelief) to generate evidence that mimics…

A vulnerability exists in certain Large Language Models and diffusion models due to discontinuities in their latent space, which arise from data sparsity during training. An attacker can craft inputs containing lexically rare or semantically ambiguous constructs to guide the model's inference process toward these unstable, poorly-conditioned regions. This technique, termed "Alignment Degradation Induction," can degrade or bypass safety alignment mechanisms. Through iterative, multi-turn…

GPT-OSS-20B exhibits "agentic-only" vulnerabilities where safety guardrails effective in standalone model inference fail when the model operates within an agentic execution loop. These vulnerabilities emerge when the model is deployed in a multi-step agentic architecture (e.g., utilizing LangGraph, tool usage, and memory retention). Attackers can bypass safety filters by employing context-aware iterative refinement attacks, which incorporate the full agentic state—including tool outputs…