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

7 entries

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

Autonomous Agent Prompt Reveal

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) deployments and multi-agent systems where an autonomous attacker agent can systematically extract hidden system prompts through self-evolving interaction strategies. The vulnerability leverages a "JustAsk" framework which utilizes Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) exploration to dynamically select and refine attack vectors from a hierarchical taxonomy of 14 atomic skills (e.g., structural formatting, authority appeals) and 14 multi-turn…

Just Ask: Curious Code Agents Reveal System Prompts in Frontier LLMs
Evaluated models: o1, Llama 3.1 70B Hanami X1, Phi-4+38 more
  • o1
  • Llama 3.1 70B Hanami X1
  • Phi-4
  • Aion 1.0
  • Sonar Pro
  • Command A
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • Mercury
  • Hunyuan A13B Instruct
  • UI-TARS 1.5 7B
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Jamba Mini 1.7
  • Hermes 4 70B
  • Step 3
  • LongCat Flash Chat
  • Tongyi DeepResearch 30B-A3B
  • Cydonia 24B v4.1
  • ERNIE 4.5 21B-A3B Thinking
  • Granite 4.0 H Micro
  • LFM2 8B-A1B
  • Nova Premier v1
  • Kimi K2 Thinking
  • KAT Coder Pro
  • Cogito v2.1 671B
  • Gemini 3 Pro Preview
  • Grok 4.1 Fast
  • Claude Opus 4.5
  • TNG R1T Chimera
  • Intellect 3
  • DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
  • Trinity Mini
  • Mistral Large 2512
  • DeepSeek V3.1 Nex N1
  • MiMo V2 Flash
  • GLM-4.7
  • MiniMax M2.1
  • Seed 1.6
  • Molmo 2 8B
  • GPT-5.2 Codex

Production LLM Copyright Extraction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Production Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to long-form training data extraction via a two-phase prompt injection attack. This vulnerability allows an attacker to recover substantial portions of memorized, copyrighted text (such as novels) by exploiting the model's autoregressive text completion capabilities. The attack methodology involves two distinct phases: 1. Prefix Completion Probe: The attacker provides a short "seed" sequence (e.g., the first sentence of a book) coupled…

Extracting Books from Production Language Models
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet 20250219, GPT-4.1 2025-04-14, Gemini 2.5 Pro+1 more
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet 20250219
  • GPT-4.1 2025-04-14
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Grok 3

Leaked Bits Collapse Attack Queries

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically variants of GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, OLMo-2, and Llama-4, are vulnerable to accelerated adaptive adversarial attacks due to excessive information leakage in observable output signals. When these models expose "thinking processes" (Chain-of-Thought traces) or token-level log-probabilities (logits) to the end user, they leak significant mutual information $I(Z;T)$ regarding the model's safety state or hidden instructions. This leakage allows adaptive attack…

Bits Leaked per Query: Information-Theoretic Bounds on Adversarial Attacks against LLMs
Evaluated models: DeepSeek R1, GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18, Llama 4 Maverick 17B+4 more
  • DeepSeek R1
  • GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18
  • Llama 4 Maverick 17B
  • Llama 4 Scout 17B
  • OLMo 2 7B-1124
  • OLMo 2 13B-1124
  • OLMo 2 32B-0325

LCCT Data Extraction & Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM)-based Code Completion Tools (LCCTs), such as GitHub Copilot and Amazon Q, are vulnerable to jailbreaking and training data extraction attacks due to their unique workflows and reliance on proprietary code datasets. Jailbreaking attacks exploit the LLM's ability to generate harmful content by embedding malicious prompts within various code components (filenames, comments, variable names, function calls). Training data extraction attacks leverage the LLM's tendency to…

Security Attacks on LLM-based Code Completion Tools
Evaluated models: GPT 3.5-turbo-0125, GPT-4 Turbo-2024-04-09, GPT-4o-2024-05-13

GCG Suffix Data Exfiltration

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A Cross-Prompt Injection Attack (XPIA) can be amplified by appending a Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) suffix to the malicious injection. This increases the likelihood that a Large Language Model (LLM) will execute the injected instruction, even in the presence of a user's primary instruction, leading to data exfiltration. The success rate of the attack depends on the LLM's complexity; medium-complexity models show increased vulnerability.

WHITE PAPER: A Brief Exploration of Data Exfiltration using GCG Suffixes
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, Phi 3 Mini

LLM Copyright Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to prompt injection attacks that can bypass their internal copyright compliance mechanisms, causing them to generate verbatim copyrighted text. The vulnerability stems from insufficient robustness against prompt engineering techniques that manipulate the model into ignoring or circumventing its safety filters designed for copyright protection.

SHIELD: Evaluation and Defense Strategies for Copyright Compliance in LLM Text Generation
Evaluated models: Claude 3 Haiku, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini Pro+5 more
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini Pro
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct

GPT-4v System Prompt Leakage

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A system prompt leakage vulnerability in GPT-4V allows extraction of internal system prompts through carefully crafted, incomplete conversations combined with image input. Extracted prompts can be used as highly effective jailbreak prompts, bypassing safety restrictions and leading to undesirable outputs, including revealing personally identifiable information from images.

Jailbreaking gpt-4v via self-adversarial attacks with system prompts
Evaluated models: GPT-4, GPT-4V, LLaVA 1.5

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.