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

30 entries

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

No-Prompt Reasoning Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An implicit reasoning hijacking vulnerability exists in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and LLM-based agent frameworks. Attackers with write access to an agent's external memory or knowledge base can inject adversarially optimized malicious instances that trigger jailbreaks without requiring any modifications to the user's input prompt. The attack utilizes a shadow model to extract high-contribution subword tokens from anticipated benign user queries via log-probability changes and…

Stop Fixating on Prompts: Reasoning Hijacking and Constraint Tightening for Red-Teaming LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-5+4 more
  • GPT-3.5 Turbo
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-5
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Claude 3.5 Haiku
  • Gemini 3.0 Pro
  • ERNIE 3.5

Agent Implicit Doc Execution

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based coding agents are vulnerable to Document-Driven Implicit Payload Execution (DDIPE) via supply-chain poisoning of third-party agent skills. Attackers can embed malicious logic directly into legitimate-looking code examples and configuration templates within skill documentation files (e.g., SKILL.md). Because coding agents ingest this metadata into their context windows and treat the documentation as an authoritative reference, the underlying LLM silently reproduces and executes the…

Supply-Chain Poisoning Attacks Against LLM Coding Agent Skill Ecosystems
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, GLM-4.7, MiniMax M2.5+2 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • GLM-4.7
  • MiniMax M2.5
  • GPT-5.4
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro

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

TEE Advisor Hallucination

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based security advisors exhibit systematic reasoning failures—including boundary confusion, attestation overclaiming, and mitigation hallucination—when providing architectural guidance for Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) like Intel SGX and Arm TrustZone. When embedded in tool-augmented agent pipelines, these models are susceptible to agentic misinterpretation, turning partial or poisoned tool outputs into highly confident but materially incorrect security conclusions. This…

Red-Teaming Claude Opus and ChatGPT-based Security Advisors for Trusted Execution Environments
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6

Automated Stealth Skill Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in LLM-based coding agents that implement modular capability extensions (often referred to as "Agent Skills") where the agent dynamically loads and executes user-provided skill packages. The vulnerability allows for Skill-Based Prompt Injection, specifically leveraging a technique known as "SkillJect." This attack decouples the malicious intent from the operational payload to bypass semantic safety filters. An attacker constructs a skill package containing: 1. Inducement…

SkillJect: Effectively Automating Skill-Based Prompt Injection for Skill-Enabled Agents
Evaluated models: Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5 Mini, GLM-4.7+7 more
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GLM-4.7
  • MiniMax M2.1
  • DeepSeek V4 Flash
  • GLM-5.1
  • MiniMax M2.7
  • MiMo V2.7
  • GPT-5.4
  • Claude Opus 4.6

RAG Knowledgebase Exfiltration

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to iterative knowledge-extraction attacks designed to reconstruct the underlying private knowledge base. The vulnerability exists due to the decoupled optimization of the retrieval and generation phases. Attackers can craft adversarial queries consisting of two distinct components: an "Information" component (optimized via gradient descent or random sampling to steer embeddings toward specific, diverse regions of the vector space) and…

Benchmarking Knowledge-Extraction Attack and Defense on Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Invisible Prompt Phishing Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal LLM-based phishing detection systems are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection via "perceptual asymmetry." Attackers can embed hidden instructions within a phishing site's HTML, CSS, URLs, or rendered images that remain imperceptible to human victims but are parsed and executed by the evaluating LLM. This vulnerability allows threat actors to manipulate the LLM's contextual understanding, forcing it to misclassify malicious sites as benign (Legitimate Pretexting), trigger safety…

Clouding the Mirror: Stealthy Prompt Injection Attacks Targeting LLM-based Phishing Detection
Evaluated models: GPT-5, Grok 4 Fast Non-Reasoning, Llama 4 Maverick+1 more
  • GPT-5
  • Grok 4 Fast Non-Reasoning
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Gemma 3 27B

Payment Protocol Whisper Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The Google Agent Payments Protocol (AP2), specifically within the reference implementation built using the Google Agent Development Kit (ADK) and Gemini models, contains vulnerabilities allowing for both indirect and direct prompt injection. The architecture fails to sufficiently isolate the Large Language Model (LLM) context from untrusted external data sources and user inputs.

Whispers of Wealth: Red-Teaming Google's Agent Payments Protocol via Prompt Injection
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash

Personalization Intent Legitimation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Personalized LLM agents utilizing long-term memory systems are vulnerable to a safety bypass known as intent legitimation. Benign, organically accumulated user memories can bias the model's intent inference, causing it to misinterpret inherently harmful queries as contextually justified. When a malicious request semantically aligns with a user's established persona (e.g., hobbies, mental health history, routine), the model normalizes the request and complies, effectively bypassing standard…

When Personalization Legitimizes Risks: Uncovering Safety Vulnerabilities in Personalized Dialogue Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, DeepSeek V3.2+2 more
  • GPT-4o
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • Qwen 3 8B

Distractor Inverse Scaling

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Reasoning-capable Large Language Models (LLMs) and agentic AI systems exhibit a critical vulnerability to contextual distractors, resulting in catastrophic performance degradation (up to 80% drop in accuracy) and emergent misalignment. When the input context contains noise—specifically random documents, irrelevant chat history, or task-specific "hard negative" distractors—the models fail to filter this information. Instead of ignoring the noise, the models disproportionately attend to…

Lost in the Noise: How Reasoning Models Fail with Contextual Distractors
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek R1 0528+4 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • DeepSeek R1 0528
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Qwen 3 4B Thinking 2507
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B Thinking 2507

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.