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

285 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

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

Multi-Strategy Prompt Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in LLM input filtering mechanisms allows attackers to bypass keyword, semantic, and state-of-the-art intent-aware defenses using composite prompt injections. By combining Obfuscation (OBF) techniques with Semantic/Social manipulation—specifically Emotional Manipulation (EM) or Reward Framing (RF)—attackers exploit a "representation gap" between the model and the defense. The underlying LLM decodes the obfuscated payload, while the defense mechanisms fail to parse the raw…

AttackEval: A Systematic Empirical Study of Prompt Injection Attack Effectiveness Against Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Not reported

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

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

RAG Arbitrary Query Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A compound vulnerability in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems allows attackers to deterministically hijack model outputs for arbitrary user queries without prior knowledge of the user's input. The vulnerability, identified as PIDP-Attack, requires a dual-vector exploitation: database poisoning and query-path prompt injection. First, the attacker injects a small number of poisoned passages into the RAG database, each starting with an attacker-chosen "target question" followed by a…

PIDP-Attack: Combining Prompt Injection with Database Poisoning Attacks on Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2 7B, Qwen 2.5 7B

LLM Universal Graph Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An evasion vulnerability in Text-Attributed Graph (TAG) learning models allows attackers to induce targeted misclassifications via LLM-generated, coordinated perturbations to both graph topology and textual semantics. By identifying a semantically distant "influencer" node, an attacker can use a separate LLM to selectively delete highly relevant edges, insert a deceptive edge connecting the target to the influencer, and slightly modify the target node's text to include a keyword aligned with…

Can LLMs Fool Graph Learning? Exploring Universal Adversarial Attacks on Text-Attributed Graphs
Evaluated models: DeepSeek-V3 671B, Llama 4 17B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • DeepSeek-V3 671B
  • Llama 4 17B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen Plus

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.