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

39 entries

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

Backdoored PEFT adapters and limits of weight-only detection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Third-party fine-tuning adapters may contain backdoors. Z-PEFT screens adapter weights using spectral features, evaluated on PADBench's 13,300 adapters.

Z-PEFT: Zero-shot Backdoor Detection in Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning via Canonical Spectral Signatures
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Llama 2 13B, Qwen 1.5 7B+2 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 2 13B
  • Qwen 1.5 7B
  • Flan-T5 XL
  • RoBERTa Base

LLM Robot JSON Backdoor

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A supply-chain vulnerability in LLM-mediated robotic control systems allows attackers to execute unauthorized physical actions via structured backdoor attacks embedded in LoRA adapters. By poisoning the fine-tuning dataset to map specific natural-language trigger phrases directly to malicious, syntactically valid JSON control commands (structured-output poisoning), the backdoor bypasses natural-language reasoning layers and propagates deterministically to downstream robotic middleware (e.g…

From Prompt to Physical Action: Structured Backdoor Attacks on LLM-Mediated Robotic Control Systems
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Gemma 2 9B IT, DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B+2 more
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Gemma 2 9B IT
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3
  • Llama 3 8B

LLM Judge Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Generative reward models deployed as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) evaluators contain a logic bypass vulnerability where superficial "master key" inputs trigger false positive rewards regardless of actual response quality. Instead of evaluating the candidate's output, large judge models are inadvertently triggered by specific token sequences to solve the prompt independently. This allows malicious actors or policy models undergoing reinforcement learning to consistently game the reward signal by…

Security in LLM-as-a-Judge: A Comprehensive SoK
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, o1, Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • o1
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct

Steering Dataset Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in contrastive activation steering allows attackers to subvert Large Language Model (LLM) behavior via dataset poisoning. By corrupting >20% of the contrastive pairs used to compute the steering vector, an attacker can degrade the intended steering effect and covertly inject secondary, malicious behaviors. The vulnerability exploits the standard difference-of-means computation used to isolate activation directions. Because the steering vector is calculated as the unweighted…

Understanding and Mitigating Dataset Corruption in LLM Steering
Evaluated models: Llama 3.2 3B, Mistral 7B

NLG Poisoning Certification Gap

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Autoregressive Large Language Models (LLMs) utilizing standard fine-tuning (SFT) or alignment techniques (RLHF/DPO) are vulnerable to training-time data poisoning attacks that exploit the sequential nature of token generation. Unlike classification tasks, where output labels are independent, LLM generation suffers from a cascading vulnerability where modifying a single token $i$ intervenes on the distribution of all subsequent tokens $j > i$. An adversary can inject a small fraction of…

Towards Poisoning Robustness Certification for Natural Language Generation
Evaluated models: Gemma 2 2B

Implicit Memory Covert Channel

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed in environments with output reingestion (e.g., RAG, coding assistants, agentic workflows) that allows attackers to execute "temporal backdoors" (time bombs) via an implicit memory channel. Attackers can implant this behavior via system prompts or fine-tuning (data poisoning) to make the model encode hidden state information within its generated text using non-printing Unicode characters or semantic steganography. When these…

Position: Stateless Yet Not Forgetful: Implicit Memory as a Hidden Channel in LLMs
Evaluated models: o3-mini, o4-mini, GPT-oss 120B+7 more
  • o3-mini
  • o4-mini
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • GPT-5.2
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Gemma 3 4B IT

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

Synchronized Multimodal Steering

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal Large Language Model-based Recommender Systems (MLLM-RecSys) are vulnerable to Cross-Modal Interactive Data Poisoning. Attackers can manipulate the system by injecting compromised user-generated content (UGC) that contains synchronized, coupled perturbations across both textual and visual modalities. While MLLMs naturally filter out single-modality noise via cross-modal consensus, this vulnerability exploits the consensus mechanism itself. By leveraging cross-modal attention to…

VENOMREC: Cross-Modal Interactive Poisoning for Targeted Promotion in Multimodal LLM Recommender Systems
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

Unified Robustness Gap

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Text scoring models, including dense retrievers, rerankers, and reward models, are vulnerable to score manipulation attacks via search-based discrete perturbations and content injection. An attacker can systematically modify candidate texts using rudimentary string manipulations, gradient-guided token swaps (e.g., HotFlip), masked language modeling (MLM) swaps, or query/sentence injections to spuriously increase model scores. This structural failure condition allows an irrelevant passage or a…

Unifying Adversarial Robustness and Training Across Text Scoring Models
Evaluated models: E5 BERT-base, Qwen 3 0.6B, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct+2 more
  • E5 BERT-base
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Skywork Reward V2

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.