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

24 entries

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

Cascading Agent False Consensus

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-Agent Systems based on Large Language Models (LLM-MAS) are vulnerable to systemic Consensus Corruption via cascading error amplification. Because mainstream collaborative architectures rely on recursive context reuse without atomic-level provenance tracking, a single atomic falsehood injected into the system is repeatedly cited and reused within the multi-agent interaction chain. This structural exposure causes the error to deterministically compound across the communication graph…

From Spark to Fire: Modeling and Mitigating Error Cascades in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

TEE Advisor Hallucination

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based security advisors exhibit systematic reasoning failures—including boundary confusion, attestation overclaiming, and mitigation hallucination—when providing architectural guidance for Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) like Intel SGX and Arm TrustZone. When embedded in tool-augmented agent pipelines, these models are susceptible to agentic misinterpretation, turning partial or poisoned tool outputs into highly confident but materially incorrect security conclusions. This…

Red-Teaming Claude Opus and ChatGPT-based Security Advisors for Trusted Execution Environments
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6

Reasoning Model Social Conformity

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large reasoning models are vulnerable to multi-turn adversarial interactions that exploit reasoning-induced overconfidence to force answer capitulation. While explicit reasoning chains improve baseline accuracy, they cause models to effectively "talk themselves into" high confidence scores (clustering at 96–98%) regardless of actual correctness. This systematic overcalibration (r=-0.08, ROC-AUC=0.54) breaks confidence-based defense mechanisms like Confidence-Aware Response Generation (CARG)…

Consistency of Large Reasoning Models Under Multi-Turn Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-5.1, GPT-5.2, DeepSeek R1+5 more
  • GPT-5.1
  • GPT-5.2
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Grok 4.1
  • Grok 3
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • GPT-4o

LLM Scaling Fidelity Paradox

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) context compression architectures (specifically compressor-decoder setups) characterized as the "Size-Fidelity Paradox." When scaling up the parameter count of the compressor model (e.g., beyond 4B parameters in Qwen-3 and LLaMA-3.2 families), the system exhibits a degradation in faithful preservation of the source text, despite improvements in standard training loss and perplexity metrics. This degradation manifests through two primary…

When Less is More: The LLM Scaling Paradox in Context Compression
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 8B, Qwen 3 32B, Llama 3.2 11B+1 more
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Llama 3.2 11B
  • Llama 3.2 90B

Context-Robust RAG Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to a robust corpus poisoning attack known as "Confundo." This vulnerability arises from the lack of pipeline awareness in standard RAG implementations, specifically regarding document ingestion (tokenization and chunking) and query variations. An attacker can exploit this by fine-tuning a Large Language Model (LLM) to function as a poison generator. Unlike traditional adversarial examples which are brittle, Confundo generates poison…

Confundo: Learning to Generate Robust Poison for Practical RAG Systems
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Gemini Pro

Chunky Post-Training Miscalibration

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a vulnerability termed "chunky post-training," where the model learns spurious correlations between incidental prompt features (e.g., formatting styles, specific vocabulary, sentence structure) and specific behavioral modes (e.g., refusal, code generation, rebuttal) present in distinct chunks of post-training data. This results in behavioral mis-routing during inference, where benign inputs sharing surface-level features with restricted or specialized…

Chunky Post-Training: Data Driven Failures of Generalization
Evaluated models: Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Claude Opus 4.5+5 more
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Claude Opus 4.5
  • GPT-5.1
  • Grok 4.1 Mini
  • Tülu 3 8B
  • Tülu 3 70B
  • Tülu 3 405B

Adversarial Claim Search Deception

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Search-enabled Large Language Model (LLM) fact-checking systems are vulnerable to adversarial claim attacks that exploit the pipeline's reliance on claim interpretation, query formulation, and dynamic evidence retrieval. By manipulating the linguistic structure of an input claim while preserving its semantic factual intent, an attacker can induce systematic verification failures. This vulnerability stems from three specific attack surfaces: 1. Search Engine Misguidance: Altering lexical…

DECEIVE-AFC: Adversarial Claim Attacks against Search-Enabled LLM-based Fact-Checking Systems
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

LLM Agent False Negative

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based autonomous agents deployed for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) false positive filtering exhibit a critical failure mode resulting in the suppression of True Positive (TP) vulnerability reports. When configured to triage alerts from tools such as CodeQL, Semgrep, and SonarQube, agents including SWE-agent, OpenHands, and Aider incorrectly classify legitimate, exploitable vulnerabilities as false positives. This vulnerability suppression is highly correlated with specific…

Sifting the Noise: A Comparative Study of LLM Agents in Vulnerability False Positive Filtering
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4, DeepSeek Chat, GPT-5

Agent Missing-Tool Hallucination

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-turn Large Language Model (LLM) agents deployed in safety-critical domains (specifically automotive assistants) exhibit a "completion-compliance tension" vulnerability. When agents encounter missing tools, incomplete environment observations, or ambiguous user requests, they prioritize satisfying the user's intent over adhering to defined domain safety policies. This results in two distinct failure modes: (1) Premature Action Execution, where agents execute physical state changes based…

CAR-bench: Evaluating the Consistency and Limit-Awareness of LLM Agents under Real-World Uncertainty
Evaluated models: GPT-5, GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.5+7 more
  • GPT-5
  • GPT-5.2
  • Claude Opus 4.5
  • Claude Sonnet 4
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • GPT-4.1
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • xLAM 2 32B

RL Adversarial Function Call

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) enabled with Function Calling (FC) capabilities are vulnerable to adversarial query rewriting and semantic manipulation. Standard FC models, typically trained via Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on static datasets, fail to generalize against adversarial inputs that deviate from fixed distribution patterns. An attacker can exploit this by crafting queries that are semantically similar to valid requests but engineered to induce "bad cases," such as incorrect tool…

Exploring Weaknesses in Function Call Models via Reinforcement Learning: An Adversarial Data Augmentation Approach
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct, Qwen 3 0.6B, Qwen 3 4B+1 more
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B

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.