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.

GPT Tool Misuse

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in OpenAI's Custom GPTs platform where the lack of effective isolation between the system context ("Expert Prompt"), external knowledge retrieval, and user input allows for unauthorized information disclosure and tool misuse. By employing specific prompt injection techniques—including Hex injection, Many-shot prefix attacks, and Knowledge Poisoning (uploading malicious files)—an attacker can bypass safety guardrails. This results in the extraction of proprietary system…

An Empirical Study on the Security Vulnerabilities of GPTs
Evaluated models: DALL-E

Pervasive Multi-turn Jailbreaks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multiple open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs)—specifically those prioritizing capability over safety alignment—exhibit a critical vulnerability to adaptive multi-turn prompt injection and jailbreak attacks. While these models effectively reject isolated, single-turn adversarial inputs (averaging ~13.11% Attack Success Rate), they fail to maintain safety guardrails and policy enforcement across extended conversational contexts. By leveraging iterative strategies such as "Crescendo" (gradual…

Death by a Thousand Prompts: Open Model Vulnerability Analysis
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Mistral Large 2+5 more
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Mistral Large 2
  • DeepSeek V3.1
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Gemma 3 1B
  • Phi-4
  • GLM 4.5 Air

Multimodal Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT-4o, LLaMA-3, and GPT-3.5-Turbo, are vulnerable to multimodal prompt injection attacks. These models fail to distinguish between system-level instructions and user-provided content within the context window. Attackers can exploit this by embedding malicious instructions in direct text, indirect sources (such as third-party webpages or PDFs), or visual inputs (images). Successful exploitation results in the model prioritizing the injected adversarial…

Multimodal Prompt Injection Attacks: Risks and Defenses for Modern LLMs
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 3 8B+1 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Mistral Large 24B

Doppelgänger Agent Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are vulnerable to role consistency collapse and privilege escalation via the "Doppelgänger Method," a prompt-based transferable adversarial attack. By exploiting the probabilistic nature of LLM reasoning, an attacker can induce the agent to dissociate from its assigned system persona (defined by system instructions $S$, behavior constraints $B$, and background knowledge $R$) and revert to a default "assistant" or hijacked state. This vulnerability allows…

Doppelgänger Method: Breaking Role Consistency in LLM Agent via Prompt-based Transferable Adversarial Attack
Evaluated models: GPT-4, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.5 Preview+6 more
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-4.5 Preview
  • GPT-4o
  • o3-mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • HCX-002
  • HCX-003
  • HCX-DASH-002

Cyber Fine-Tuning Undermines Safety

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) on the CyberLLMInstruct dataset results in a critical degradation of safety alignment and refusal mechanisms. While the dataset comprises "pseudo-malicious" content (educational descriptions of malware, phishing, and exploits without executable payloads), the Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) process on this corpus causes the models to generalize this instruction-following behavior to actual malicious requests. This effectively bypasses safety guardrails…

CyberLLMInstruct: A new dataset for analysing safety of fine-tuned LLMs using cyber security data
Evaluated models: Llama 2 70B, Llama 3 8B, Llama 3.1 8B+4 more
  • Llama 2 70B
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Phi-3 Mini 3.8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 9B

Agent Action Hijacking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in LLM-based agents, dubbed AI Agent Injection (AI²), allows attackers to hijack the agent's actions by manipulating the agent's memory retrieval mechanism. The attack involves two main steps: (1) Stealing action-aware knowledge from the agent's memory using crafted adversarial queries targeting the retriever module and (2) Generating Trojan prompts consisting of a Trojan string and hijacking instructions. The Trojan string is designed to manipulate the retriever into…

Towards Action Hijacking of Large Language Model-based Agent
Evaluated models: BERT, GPT-3, GPT-4+2 more
  • BERT
  • GPT-3
  • GPT-4
  • M3E
  • MiniLM

AutoDAN: Interpretable LLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

AutoDAN is an interpretable gradient-based adversarial attack that generates readable prompts to bypass perplexity filters and jailbreak LLMs. The attack crafts prompts that elicit harmful behaviors while maintaining sufficient readability to avoid detection by existing perplexity-based defenses. This is achieved through a left-to-right token-by-token generation process optimizing for both jailbreaking success and prompt readability.

Autodan: Automatic and interpretable adversarial attacks on large language models
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, Guanaco 7B+4 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Guanaco 7B
  • Llama 2 Chat
  • Pythia 12B
  • Vicuna 13B
  • Vicuna 7B

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.