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

16 entries

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

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

Black-Box Confidence Exploit

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in the self-reflection and introspection capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-LLMs that allows attackers to perform black-box adversarial optimization using only textual model responses. This technique, termed "Asking for Directions" (AfD), bypasses the need for access to gradients, logits, or continuous confidence scores. The attacker employs a hill-climbing optimization strategy where they present the target model with two candidate inputs (an…

Black-box Optimization of LLM Outputs by Asking for Directions
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct+8 more
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 11B Vision
  • Llama 3.2 90B Vision
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet

AI Browser Indirect Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Agentic AI browsers and LLM-powered browser extensions are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection via the processing of untrusted web content. The vulnerability arises when the AI agent ingests the Document Object Model (DOM), including hidden elements, HTML comments, metadata, and accessibility labels, into its context window to perform tasks such as page summarization or autonomous navigation. Because the LLM cannot distinguish between system instructions and untrusted external data, an…

In-browser llm-guided fuzzing for real-time prompt injection testing in agentic AI browsers
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Llama 3.1 70B, Llama 3.3 70B

Agent System Orchestration Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-agent systems (MAS) utilizing Large Language Model (LLM) orchestration are vulnerable to control-flow hijacking via indirect prompt injection, leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE). This vulnerability arises when a sub-agent (e.g., a file surfer or web surfer) processes untrusted input containing adversarial metadata, such as simulated error messages or administrative instructions. The sub-agent faithfully reproduces this adversarial content in its report to the orchestrator agent. The…

Multi-agent systems execute arbitrary malicious code
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 1.5 Pro+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash

Flowchart-based LVLM Jailbreak Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

FC-Attack leverages automatically generated flowcharts containing step-by-step descriptions derived or rephrased from harmful queries, combined with a benign textual prompt, to jailbreak Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). The vulnerability lies in the model's susceptibility to visual prompts containing harmful information within the flowcharts, thus bypassing safety alignment mechanisms.

FC-Attack: Jailbreaking Large Vision-Language Models via Auto-Generated Flowcharts
Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620, Gemini 1.5 Flash, GPT-4o 2024-08-06+4 more
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20240620
  • Gemini 1.5 Flash
  • GPT-4o 2024-08-06
  • GPT-4o Mini 2024-07-18
  • InternVL2.5 8B
  • LLaVA NeXT 8B
  • Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct

LLM Risk Amplification

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to visual prompt injection attacks via text-to-image obfuscation. While these models often possess safety guardrails for standard text-based inputs, they fail to apply equivalent safety alignment to textual instructions embedded visually within an image. An attacker can overlay malicious instructions (e.g., requests for illegal acts, hate speech) onto an image file and submit it to the model. The model’s Optical Character Recognition (OCR) or visual…

Lessons from red teaming 100 generative ai products
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Phi-3

Visual Jailbreak via Multi-Loss

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreak attacks using carefully crafted adversarial images. Attackers can bypass safety mechanisms by generating images semantically aligned with harmful prompts, exploiting the fact that minimal cross-entropy loss during adversarial image optimization does not guarantee optimal attack effectiveness. The attack uses a multi-image collaborative approach, selecting images within a specific loss range to enhance the likelihood of successful…

Exploring Visual Vulnerabilities via Multi-Loss Adversarial Search for Jailbreaking Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: LLaVA 2, MiniGPT-4

Zeroth-Order MLLM Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety mechanisms and elicit harmful responses using a memory-efficient zeroth-order optimization technique. The attack, termed Zer0-Jack, leverages simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation (SPSA) with patch coordinate descent to generate malicious image inputs, even without access to the model's internal parameters (black-box setting).

Zer0-Jack: A Memory-efficient Gradient-based Jailbreaking Method for Black-box Multi-modal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Inf-mllm1, LLaVA 1.5+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • Inf-mllm1
  • LLaVA 1.5
  • MiniGPT-4

Embodied LLM Misaligned Actions

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Embodied Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to manipulation via voice-based interactions, leading to the execution of harmful physical actions. Attacks exploit three vulnerabilities: (1) cascading LLM jailbreaks resulting in malicious robotic commands; (2) misalignment between linguistic outputs (verbal refusal) and physical actions (command execution); and (3) conceptual deception, where seemingly benign instructions lead to harmful outcomes due to incomplete world knowledge within…

BadRobot: Manipulating Embodied LLMs in the Physical World
Evaluated models: BERT, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo+2 more
  • BERT
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B

LLM Robot Bias & Violence

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) used to control robots exhibit biases leading to discriminatory and unsafe behaviors. When provided with personal characteristics (e.g., race, gender, disability), LLMs generate biased outputs resulting in discriminatory actions (e.g., assigning lower rescue priority to certain groups) and accept or deem feasible dangerous or unlawful instructions (e.g., removing a person's mobility aid).

Llm-driven robots risk enacting discrimination, violence, and unlawful actions
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4+1 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4
  • Mistral 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.