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

99 entries

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

RAG Arbitrary Query Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A compound vulnerability in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems allows attackers to deterministically hijack model outputs for arbitrary user queries without prior knowledge of the user's input. The vulnerability, identified as PIDP-Attack, requires a dual-vector exploitation: database poisoning and query-path prompt injection. First, the attacker injects a small number of poisoned passages into the RAG database, each starting with an attacker-chosen "target question" followed by a…

PIDP-Attack: Combining Prompt Injection with Database Poisoning Attacks on Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2 7B, Qwen 2.5 7B

Stage-Sequential Agent Escalation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Agentic Large Language Model (LLM) systems utilizing persistent memory, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, and external tool connectors are vulnerable to Logic-layer Prompt Control Injection (LPCI). An attacker can inject obfuscated (e.g., encoded, structurally nested, or semantically reframed) payloads into external memory stores or RAG documents. These payloads bypass conventional inference-time plaintext content filters, persist across session boundaries, and remain dormant…

LAAF: Logic-layer Automated Attack Framework A Systematic Red-Teaming Methodology for LPCI Vulnerabilities in Agentic Large Language Model Systems
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Claude 3 Haiku, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct+2 more
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
  • Gemini 2.0 Flash
  • Mixtral 8x7B Instruct

Contextual Priority Hacking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to a jailbreak technique termed "Priority Hacking." Adversaries can bypass safety alignments by exploiting the model's internal priority graph, where certain abstract values (e.g., justice, public health) implicitly outweigh general safety restrictions within specific contexts. By crafting a deceptive prompt that frames a malicious request as a necessary action in service of a higher-priority benign value, attackers engineer a value conflict. The…

Are Dilemmas and Conflicts in LLM Alignment Solvable? A View from Priority Graph
Evaluated models: Not reported

Autonomous Agent Tool RCE

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The OpenClaw autonomous agent framework lacks execution sandboxing, running agents directly on the host machine with the disk and system privileges of the host user. This architecture allows attackers to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) and arbitrary data exfiltration via Indirect Prompt Injection. By embedding malicious instructions within external data sources (e.g., scraped web pages or uploaded documents), an attacker can hijack the agent's planning capabilities to sequentially chain…

Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw
Evaluated models: Not reported

Agent Lifecycle Compound Threats

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

OpenClaw is vulnerable to persistent memory poisoning, allowing an attacker to manipulate the agent's long-term memory store (MEMORY.md) via prompt injection. Because the autonomous agent continuously integrates this memory file as context for all subsequent reasoning and task planning, injected payloads act as durable behavioral constraints. This allows an attacker to persistently alter the agent's core policy, manipulate tool selection, and hijack future sessions without any further…

Taming openclaw: Security analysis and mitigation of autonomous llm agent threats
Evaluated models: Not reported

TabooRAG Transferable Blocking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems utilizing safety-aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to perform a highly transferable Denial-of-Service (DoS) or "blocking" attack. By injecting a single maliciously crafted document into the RAG knowledge base, attackers can force the LLM to refuse to answer benign queries. Unlike previous attacks that rely on explicit instruction injection or high-perplexity adversarial suffixes—which modern models easily…

When Safety Becomes a Vulnerability: Exploiting LLM Alignment Homogeneity for Transferable Blocking in RAG
Evaluated models: GPT-5.2, GPT-5 Mini, DeepSeek V3.2+4 more
  • GPT-5.2
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Gemma 3 12B IT
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Ministral 3 8B Instruct-2512

Adaptive Agent Tool Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Agentic LLMs integrated with external data services (e.g., Model Context Protocol, MCP) are vulnerable to Adaptive Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attacks. When an agent queries external servers, attackers can inject malicious payloads into the retrieved content to hijack the agent's reasoning process and force the execution of high-authority tools. Unlike traditional static prompt injections, this vulnerability dynamically exploits the agent's internal logic audit. By using Markovian…

AdapTools: Adaptive Tool-based Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic LLMs
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, DeepSeek R1, Gemini 2.5 Flash+3 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • DeepSeek R1
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 8B

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

LLM Ranker Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM-based document re-rankers utilizing decoder-only and Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures are vulnerable to candidate-embedded prompt injections during multi-document comparison tasks. By embedding Decision Objective Hijacking (DOH) or Decision Criteria Hijacking (DCH) prompts into candidate documents, attackers can manipulate the model's preference to artificially elevate an injected document to the top rank. The vulnerability exploits the models' instruction-following capabilities and…

The Vulnerability of LLM Rankers to Prompt Injection Attacks
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 0.6B, Qwen 3 1.7B, Qwen 3 8B+11 more
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • Qwen 3 1.7B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B
  • Gemma 3 1B IT
  • Gemma 3 4B IT
  • Gemma 3 12B IT
  • Gemma 3 27B IT
  • Llama 3 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Llama 3.3 70B
  • GPT-4.1 Mini

Structural Template Agent Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in LLM-based autonomous agents allows remote attackers to hijack agent execution via Structural Template Injection (STI). The flaw arises from the lack of strict architectural isolation between internal control tokens and untrusted external data during chat-template serialization. By embedding framework-specific special tokens (e.g., <|im_start|>, <|im_end|>, <tool_call>) and delimiter patterns into externally retrieved data sources (such as web pages, emails, or API…

Automating Agent Hijacking via Structural Template Injection
Evaluated models: GPT-4, GPT-4o, DeepSeek V3

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.