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

5 entries

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

Zero-Tax Fine-Tune Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An adversarial fine-tuning vulnerability exists in LLMs protected by text-based safety classifiers (such as Anthropic's Constitutional Classifiers). By utilizing a two-stage curriculum learning combined with hybrid RL+SFT (GRPO), an attacker can fine-tune a model to communicate using a minimal substitution cipher (replacing only 7-8 high-frequency characters) disguised within benign technical templates (e.g., forensic logs with 0x prefixes). This "Trojan-Speak" methodology bypasses text-level…

Trojan-Speak: Bypassing Constitutional Classifiers with No Jailbreak Tax via Adversarial Finetuning
Evaluated models: Claude Haiku 4.5, Qwen 3 4B, Qwen 3 8B+2 more
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Qwen 3 32B

LLM Steganographic Covert Channel

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A malicious finetuning vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) that process zero-width Unicode characters. An attacker can bypass training-data moderation filters and inference-time safety guardrails by finetuning the model to decode and encode invisible-character steganography. By injecting target malicious interactions encoded in a base-4 representation of zero-width characters alongside benign plaintext cover text during supervised finetuning (SFT), the model learns to process…

Invisible Safety Threat: Malicious Finetuning for LLM via Steganography
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Phi-4+1 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Phi-4
  • Mistral Small 24B Base 2501

Long-Horizon Agent Attacks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM agents equipped with tool-use, persistent memory, and environmental interaction capabilities are vulnerable to long-horizon attacks. Attackers can bypass single-turn safety guardrails by exploiting the temporal dimension of multi-turn interactions to incrementally steer agent behavior. The vulnerability manifests because the agent's safety mechanisms perform localized, single-step evaluations but fail to maintain semantic safety across extended interaction trajectories. This enables…

AgentLAB: Benchmarking LLM Agents against Long-Horizon Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Flash+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5.1
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5

Black-Box Fine-Tuning Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) fine-tuning interfaces are vulnerable to a semantic obfuscation attack that bypasses multi-stage safety defenses, including pre-upload data filtering, defensive fine-tuning algorithms, and post-training safety audits. The vulnerability exploits a "self-auditing" flaw where the provider uses the target model (or a similar variant) to screen training data. Attackers can submit a small dataset (approx. 500 samples) where harmful answers are obfuscated using a…

Fine-Tuning Jailbreaks under Highly Constrained Black-Box Settings: A Three-Pronged Approach
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4o Mini+5 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Gemma 1.1 7B IT
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Claude Sonnet 4

Guardrail Bypass Harmful Fine-tuning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Virus attack method enables attackers to bypass guardrail moderation on fine-tuning data, leading to a significant degradation of safety alignment in large language models (LLMs). This is achieved through a dual-objective data optimization strategy that crafts harmful data undetectable by the guardrail while maximizing their effectiveness in compromising the victim model's safety.

Virus: Harmful Fine-tuning Attack for Large Language Models Bypassing Guardrail Moderation
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Llama Guard 2

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.