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

294 entries

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

Information-Overloading Jailbreaks in Vision-Language Models

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper describes a reproducible black-box multimodal jailbreak evaluation, INFER/INFER+, in which dense image typography, nested cross-modal references, recursive visual layouts, and entropy-guided search increase processing complexity and weaken refusal behavior in large vision-language models. The authors report average ASRs of 88.6% on open-source models and 84.0% on commercial models; these are paper-reported measurements, not independently verified facts. For safe defensive…

Overloading Large Vision-Language Models for Jailbreaking
Evaluated models: Qwen3-VL 8B, Qwen2-VL-7B, InternVL3.5-8B+5 more
  • Qwen3-VL 8B
  • Qwen2-VL-7B
  • InternVL3.5-8B
  • InternVL 2 8B
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision
  • GPT-4.1 Mini
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Multilingual Flowchart Jailbreaks in Vision-Language Models

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

MLingualFC is a reproducible black-box safety evaluation showing that harmful instructions rendered as multilingual flowchart images can bypass vision-language model safeguards more often than equivalent text-only inputs. The paper evaluates horizontal, vertical, and tortuous layouts across English, Hindi, Punjabi, Spanish, Romanian, and German. Reported results vary substantially by language, script, layout, and model; these are paper-reported measurements, not independently verified…

MLingualFC: Evaluating Jailbreak Vulnerabilities in Multilingual Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct, Gemma-4-E4B-it, Pangea-7B

Visual-Modality Jailbreaks Bypass VLM Safety Alignment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper reports a reproducible black-box evaluation showing that vision-language models can recover prohibited intent encoded or implied through ostensibly benign visual inputs. Four tested families—visual ciphers, object replacement, text replacement, and analogy riddles—expose a cross-modality alignment gap: safeguards effective for explicit text may not reliably apply after harmful semantics are reconstructed from images. These are paper-reported results, not independently verified…

Jailbreaking Vision-Language Models Through the Visual Modality
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini 3 Flash+3 more
  • GPT-5.2
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Gemini 3 Flash
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro
  • Qwen3-VL-235B
  • Qwen3-VL-32B

Diverse VLA Linguistic Fragility

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models suffer from a severe linguistic fragility vulnerability where semantically equivalent but structurally complex adversarial instructions cause catastrophic failures in visual grounding and geometric reasoning. Attackers can reliably induce physical execution failures in robotic manipulation tasks by applying semantic-preserving linguistic variations, such as synonymous rephrasing, syntactic restructuring, or the addition of fine-grained compositional…

Uncovering Linguistic Fragility in Vision-Language-Action Models via Diversity-Aware Red Teaming
Evaluated models: Pi-Zero, OpenVLA 7B, 3D-Diffuser Actor

Maladaptive Therapeutic Reinforcement

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned for helpfulness and empathy are vulnerable to a Persona-based Client Simulation Attack (PCSA) that exploits the model's inability to distinguish therapeutic empathy from maladaptive validation. By embedding harmful intents within coherent, multi-turn psychological counseling narratives and employing clinical resistance strategies (such as intellectualization or metaphorical expression), attackers can compel the model to prioritize rapport-building over…

Do No Harm: Exposing Hidden Vulnerabilities of LLMs via Persona-based Client Simulation Attack in Psychological Counseling
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-5.1, Llama 3.1 8B+5 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-5.1
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Crispers 7B
  • Psycho 8B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B

Jailbreak Saturates Alignment Defenses

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A cognitive overload vulnerability in OpenAI gpt-oss-20b allows attackers to bypass instruction hierarchy and deliberative alignment safety mechanisms using "Compound Jailbreaks." By combining multiple non-contradictory but cognitively demanding tasks within a single prompt, the attack saturates the finite reasoning resources allocated for safety judgments. Because the model's safety training relies on probabilistic redistribution rather than capability elimination, this cognitive exhaustion…

Generalization Limits of Reinforcement Learning Alignment
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B

Physical Infrared Semantic Disruption

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Infrared Vision-Language Models (IR-VLMs) allows attackers to systematically degrade open-ended semantic understanding—compromising classification, captioning, and Visual Question Answering (VQA)—via a physically deployable Universal Curved-Grid Patch (UCGP). Instead of manipulating explicit text labels, the attack disrupts the clean-category manifold in the model's visual representation space by maximizing orthogonal deviation energy from the principal subspace and forcing…

Revealing Physical-World Semantic Vulnerabilities: Universal Adversarial Patches for Infrared Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: InstructBLIP

Unsafe Culinary Instructions

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

State-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) and safety guardrails lack domain-specific safety alignment for food science, making them vulnerable to generating actionable, hazardous food safety instructions. Attackers can exploit this alignment sparsity using canonical jailbreak techniques (such as AutoDAN and Persuasive Adversarial Prompting) or direct adversarial prompting to bypass generic safety filters. This allows malicious actors to elicit harmful guidance that violates fundamental FDA…

Cooking Up Risks: Benchmarking and Reducing Food Safety Risks in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1+8 more
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4.1
  • GLM-4 32B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Mistral Small 4
  • Qwen3Guard
  • Llama Guard 4

VLM Visual-Textual Misalignment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to pixel-level adversarial image perturbations. An attacker can inject $\ell_p$-bounded, human-imperceptible noise into an input image to manipulate the model's multi-modal embedding space. This reliably causes the VLM to generate incorrect textual responses, hallucinate non-existent objects, or misclassify subjects, effectively decoupling the model's reasoning from the actual visual evidence. The vulnerability is exploitable via both white-box…

PDA: Text-Augmented Defense Framework for Robust Vision-Language Models against Adversarial Image Attacks
Evaluated models: LLaVA 1.5 7B, LLaVA 1.5 13B, DeepSeek VL 1.3B+2 more
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • LLaVA 1.5 13B
  • DeepSeek VL 1.3B
  • InternVL3 2B
  • Ovis2 4B

Invisible Visual Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An imperceptible visual prompt injection vulnerability in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) allows attackers to execute precise command-hijacking via a Covert Triggered dual-Target Attack (CoTTA). By embedding a bounded, learnable textual overlay ($L_\infty$ norm bound $\varepsilon \le 16$) and adversarial noise into an input image, the attack forces the source image's internal feature representation to align with both the textual and visual embeddings of an attacker-specified…

Adversarial Prompt Injection Attack on Multimodal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-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.