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

27 entries

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

Visual prompt injection crosses document trust boundaries

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Untrusted document images can redirect vision-language agents across instruction and tool-authorization boundaries. Repeat-After-Me evaluates six victim models on constructed document tasks.

Repeat-After-Me: Black-Box Adaptive Visual Prompt Injection
Evaluated models: claude-opus-4-7, GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro+3 more
  • claude-opus-4-7
  • GPT-5.5
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro
  • Qwen3.6-27B
  • Qwen3-VL 32B Instruct
  • InternVL3.5 38B Instruct

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

Observation Poisons Agent Memory

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Memory-augmented LLM web agents utilizing raw trajectory memory are vulnerable to Environment-injected Trajectory-based Agent Memory Poisoning (eTAMP). Attackers can embed malicious instructions within user-generated web content (e.g., product pages, forum posts). When the agent processes this content during a routine task, the instructions are passively ingested into its raw trajectory memory. During subsequent, entirely separate tasks on different websites, semantic retrieval mechanisms pull…

Poison Once, Exploit Forever: Environment-Injected Memory Poisoning Attacks on Web Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-5 Mini, GPT-5.2, GPT-oss 120B+3 more
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5.2
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B
  • Qwen3-VL-32B
  • Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Agentic Robot Instruction Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are vulnerable to targeted, low-budget textual perturbations in their natural-language instruction inputs, which can maliciously alter sequential decision-making and downstream physical robotic behavior. Because VLA policies tightly couple language, perception, and control, bounded edits—such as character-level typos, token attribute swaps, or prompt-level uncertainty clauses—propagate through the model's execution trajectory. This allows a black-box…

SABER: A Stealthy Agentic Black-Box Attack Framework for Vision-Language-Action Models
Evaluated models: Not reported

Indirect Prompt Injection Hijacks Tool-Using Agents

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The paper evaluates a reproducible indirect prompt injection issue in ReAct-style LLM agents: untrusted retrieved content can be interpreted as instructions and redirect the agent toward unauthorized tool calls. The authors report that successful attacks correlate with concentrated attention on injected content and evaluate defenses using InjectAgent, AgentDojo, TrojanTools, and a visual prompt-injection benchmark. These are paper-reported findings, not independently verified facts.

ICON: Indirect Prompt Injection Defense for Agents based on Inference-Time Correction
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 8B, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 8B+3 more
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 8B
  • Qwen3VL
  • InternVL
  • MiniCPM

Mobile Agent Visual Spoofing

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Mobile Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating under the "Screen-as-Interface" paradigm are vulnerable to visual indirect prompt injection and state desynchronization. Agents that rely on unstructured visual data (screenshots) and Accessibility Service APIs to perceive the environment lack a mechanism to distinguish between trusted system UI elements and untrusted content (e.g., web pages, emails, or malicious overlays). An attacker can inject visual cues, fake notifications, or hidden…

Blind Gods and Broken Screens: Architecting a Secure, Intent-Centric Mobile Agent Operating System
Evaluated models: Not reported

Visual Exclusivity Agentic Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Frontier Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are vulnerable to Visual Exclusivity (VE) attacks, an "Image-as-Basis" threat where malicious intent is achieved through joint reasoning over benign text and complex technical visual content (e.g., blueprints, schematics, network diagrams). Unlike wrapper-based attacks that conceal malicious text via typography or adversarial noise, VE exploits the model's core visual reasoning capabilities. Attackers can bypass safety filters by combining…

Visual Exclusivity Attacks: Automatic Multimodal Red Teaming via Agentic Planning
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 11B Vision, InternVL3 8B, Qwen3-VL 8B+5 more
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision
  • InternVL3 8B
  • Qwen3-VL 8B
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro

Visual Object Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to Physical Prompt Injection Attacks (PPIA), a query-agnostic injection technique delivered via the visual modality. The vulnerability stems from the model's "Vision-Enabled Text Recognition" capabilities and "Identity Sensitivity," where the model interprets text embedded in the physical environment (e.g., printed on signs, posters, or objects) as high-priority instructions rather than passive visual data. An attacker can embed adversarial…

Physical Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, GPT-4 Turbo+7 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro Latest
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro 002
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash Latest
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet Latest
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku 20241022
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision
  • Llama 3.2 90B Vision Instruct

LLM Review Paraphrase Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-as-a-Reviewer systems, which utilize large language models to automate the peer review process, are vulnerable to the Paraphrasing Adversarial Attack (PAA). PAA is a black-box optimization technique that exploits the model's sensitivity to specific input sequences and self-preference bias. By iteratively paraphrasing specific manuscript sections (such as the abstract) using in-context learning (ICL) guided by previous review scores, an attacker can generate adversarial sequences that…

Paraphrasing Adversarial Attack on LLM-as-a-Reviewer
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4

Dual Stego MLLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Commercial Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) integrated systems are vulnerable to a "Dual Steganography" jailbreak paradigm (referred to as Odysseus). The vulnerability arises from the reliance of safety filters on the assumption that malicious content must be explicitly visible in the input or output modalities (text or image). Attackers can bypass these filters by encoding malicious queries into binary matrices and embedding them into benign-looking images using steganographic encoders…

Odysseus: Jailbreaking Commercial Multimodal LLM-integrated Systems via Dual Steganography
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Gemini 2.0 Pro, Gemini 2.0 Flash+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Gemini 2.0 Pro
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Grok 3

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.