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

46 entries

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

LLM Private Attribute Inference

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to Attribute Inference Attacks, where an attacker exploits the model's reasoning capabilities to deduce sensitive personal attributes (e.g., age, gender, location, income level) from seemingly innocuous, unclassified user-generated text. Unlike traditional privacy leaks that rely on the memorization of training data, this vulnerability leverages the model's zero-shot inference and contextual deduction. Because the attack prompts are benign in nature…

Stop Tracking Me! Proactive Defense Against Attribute Inference Attack in LLMs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 2 13B Chat, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct+5 more
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro

LLM Edit Fingerprint Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A side-channel information leakage vulnerability exists in the "locate-then-edit" paradigm of Large Language Model (LLM) knowledge editing, specifically affecting algorithms such as ROME, MEMIT, and AlphaEdit. The parameter update matrix ($\Delta W$) generated during the editing process preserves the algebraic structure of the edited data. Specifically, the row space of the parameter difference matrix encodes a mathematical fingerprint of the key vectors associated with the edited subjects. An…

Reverse-Engineering Model Editing on Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Voice Agent Behavioral Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Audio Large Language Models (ALLMs) integrated into voice agent systems for high-stakes domains (banking, IT support, logistics) are vulnerable to multimodal adversarial attacks via spoken interaction. Adversaries can exploit the model's inherent compliance and contextual awareness through multi-turn dialogue to bypass authentication safeguards, escalate privileges (e.g., unauthorized credit limit increases), exfiltrate sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and poison…

Aegis: Towards Governance, Integrity, and Security of AI Voice Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 1.5 Pro+4 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Qwen2-Audio 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 Omni 7B

Evolutionary Hidden Knowledge Recovery

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) subjected to machine unlearning techniques (specifically AltPO, GradDiff, IDKDPO, IDKNLL, UNDIAL, NPO, and SimNPO) contain a vulnerability regarding the persistence of latent knowledge. Despite achieving high "forgetting" scores on standard, benign benchmarks, these models remain susceptible to black-box evolutionary adversarial attacks. An attacker can utilize an automated framework (REBEL) comprising a "Hacker" model and a "Judge" model to iteratively mutate…

REBEL: Hidden Knowledge Recovery via Evolutionary-Based Evaluation Loop
Evaluated models: Not reported

LLM Backdoor Trigger Reconstruction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) subjected to Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) are vulnerable to "sleeper agent" data poisoning attacks. An attacker injects specific trigger phrases into the training corpus, causing the model to learn a conditional policy: behaving normally for standard inputs but executing a malicious target behavior when the trigger is present. These backdoors persist through safety training and alignment. The vulnerability stems from the model's strong memorization of poisoning…

The Trigger in the Haystack: Extracting and Reconstructing LLM Backdoor Triggers
Evaluated models: Gemma 3 270M IT, DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B, Phi-4 Mini Instruct+4 more
  • Gemma 3 270M IT
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B
  • Phi-4 Mini Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Phi-4 Reasoning Plus
  • Llama 2 7B Backdoor DEPLOYMENT
  • OpenHermes 13B Backdoor DEPLOYMENT

Zero-Training Cross-Domain Inversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A cryptographic weakness exists in the privacy assumptions of vector embeddings used in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems and Vector Databases. The vulnerability, designated "Zero2Text," allows an unauthenticated attacker to reconstruct raw text from captured vector embeddings without access to the victim model's parameters, gradients, or training data. Unlike prior embedding inversion attacks that require training large decoders on domain-specific datasets, this vulnerability…

Zero2Text: Zero-Training Cross-Domain Inversion Attacks on Textual Embeddings
Evaluated models: Not reported

Attention Exposes Membership

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs) contain a privacy vulnerability within their self-attention mechanisms that allows for Membership Inference Attacks (MIA). Pre-training induces distinct, highly structured, and concentrated attention patterns for data samples included in the training set, differentiating them from non-member samples which exhibit noisier, less consistent attention flows. An attacker with white-box access to the model parameters (specifically attention weight…

AttenMIA: LLM Membership Inference Attack through Attention Signals
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 2 13B, Pythia 1.4B+11 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Pythia 1.4B
  • Pythia 2.8B
  • Pythia 6.9B
  • Pythia 12B
  • GPT-NeoX 20B
  • OPT 1.3B
  • OPT 2.7B
  • OPT 6.7B
  • OPT 13B
  • OPT 30B
  • OPT 66B
  • GPT-2

LLM Input PII Leakage

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Unintended input-only PII memorization in fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) allows remote attackers to extract sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII) such as names, medical records, and financial details. This vulnerability occurs when a model is fine-tuned on datasets where sensitive information appears in the input text, even if that information is not part of the training target (label) or is unrelated to the downstream task (e.g., classification). The fine-tuning process…

Unintended Memorization of Sensitive Information in Fine-Tuned Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.2 1B

Activation-Level Privacy Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Conversational Large Language Model (LLM) agents integrated with privileged data sources (e.g., medical records, organizational emails) are vulnerable to contextually inappropriate information disclosure due to failures in enforcing Contextual Integrity (CI) norms. Standard semantic input/output filters and generic safety guardrails (e.g., Llama Guard) fail to detect "mosaic attacks" and multi-turn conversational manipulation. In these attacks, adversaries decompose a malicious query into a…

NeuroFilter: Privacy Guardrails for Conversational LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 7B+3 more
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 72B

CoT Trajectory Data Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) employing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) generation are vulnerable to sensitive information leakage through intermediate reasoning steps, even after undergoing standard unlearning procedures (such as Gradient Ascent, Direct Preference Optimization, or KL Minimization). While these fine-tuning-based unlearning methods typically suppress sensitive content in the final generated answer, they fail to purge the information from the model's internal reasoning trajectory…

STaR: Sensitive Trajectory Regulation for Unlearning in Large Reasoning Models
Evaluated models: o1, DeepSeek R1

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.