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

27 entries

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

No-Prompt Reasoning Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An implicit reasoning hijacking vulnerability exists in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and LLM-based agent frameworks. Attackers with write access to an agent's external memory or knowledge base can inject adversarially optimized malicious instances that trigger jailbreaks without requiring any modifications to the user's input prompt. The attack utilizes a shadow model to extract high-contribution subword tokens from anticipated benign user queries via log-probability changes and…

Stop Fixating on Prompts: Reasoning Hijacking and Constraint Tightening for Red-Teaming LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-5+4 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Gemini 3.0 Pro
  • ERNIE 3.5

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

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

Contextual Priority Hacking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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…

Are Dilemmas and Conflicts in LLM Alignment Solvable? A View from Priority Graph
Evaluated models: Not reported

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

Automated Stealth Skill Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in LLM-based coding agents that implement modular capability extensions (often referred to as "Agent Skills") where the agent dynamically loads and executes user-provided skill packages. The vulnerability allows for Skill-Based Prompt Injection, specifically leveraging a technique known as "SkillJect." This attack decouples the malicious intent from the operational payload to bypass semantic safety filters. An attacker constructs a skill package containing: 1. Inducement…

SkillJect: Effectively Automating Skill-Based Prompt Injection for Skill-Enabled Agents
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5 Mini, GLM-4.7+7 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GLM-4.7
  • MiniMax M2.1
  • DeepSeek V4 Flash
  • GLM-5.1
  • MiniMax M2.7
  • MiMo V2.7
  • GPT-5.4
  • Claude Opus 4.6

Agent-as-a-Proxy Monitor Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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…

Bypassing AI Control Protocols via Agent-as-a-Proxy Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

Payment Protocol Whisper Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Google Agent Payments Protocol (AP2), specifically within the reference implementation built using the Google Agent Development Kit (ADK) and Gemini models, contains vulnerabilities allowing for both indirect and direct prompt injection. The architecture fails to sufficiently isolate the Large Language Model (LLM) context from untrusted external data sources and user inputs.

Whispers of Wealth: Red-Teaming Google's Agent Payments Protocol via Prompt Injection
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash

Persona Adherence Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed as Role-Playing Agents (RPAs) are vulnerable to Persona-Targeted Jailbreaks. When an LLM is prompted to adopt a persona—particularly characters with negative, risky, or villainous traits—the model's optimization for role fidelity frequently overrides its foundational safety alignment. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability by synthesizing queries that leverage the specific narrative background, ideology, or psychological vulnerabilities of the assigned…

Stay in Character, Stay Safe: Dual-Cycle Adversarial Self-Evolution for Safety Role-Playing Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 9B

Personalization Intent Legitimation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Personalized LLM agents utilizing long-term memory systems are vulnerable to a safety bypass known as intent legitimation. Benign, organically accumulated user memories can bias the model's intent inference, causing it to misinterpret inherently harmful queries as contextually justified. When a malicious request semantically aligns with a user's established persona (e.g., hobbies, mental health history, routine), the model normalizes the request and complies, effectively bypassing standard…

When Personalization Legitimizes Risks: Uncovering Safety Vulnerabilities in Personalized Dialogue Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, DeepSeek V3.2+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • 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.