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

798 entries

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

Boilerplate safety tuning causes false refusals on benign requests

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Controlled safety-tuning experiments link boilerplate refusal statements to unnecessary refusals of benign requests. Request-specific rationales improve benign compliance, with benchmark-dependent safety tradeoffs.

Refuse without Refusal: A Structural Analysis of Safety-Tuning Responses for Reducing False Refusals in Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B v0.3, Gemma 2 9B+9 more
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B v0.3
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Qwen 2.5 3B
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3
  • Gemma 2 9B IT
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Selective refusal gaps in visual question answering

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

KoNA measures whether vision-language models answer valid image questions while refusing unsafe components or correcting unsupported premises. Its 9,300 question-answer pairs include mixed and fully answerable controls.

Knowing What Not to Answer: Selective Non-Compliance in Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: InternVL3 2B Instruct, InternVL3-78B-Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct+5 more
  • InternVL3 2B Instruct
  • InternVL3-78B-Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B Instruct
  • GPT-5
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • InternVL3-2B-KoNA
  • Qwen2.5-VL-3B-KoNA

Single-interaction poisoning of agent memory

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A stored interaction can later steer a memory-augmented agent's answer without direct memory-store access. The study evaluates persistent response manipulation in MemoryOS and MemGPT.

InjecMEM: Memory Injection Attack on LLM Agent Memory Systems
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct+3 more
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3

Agentic Binary Reverse-Engineering Capability Gaps

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

SRE-Bench evaluates whether cybersecurity agents can recover the behavior of realistic binary-only software without relying on source-code memorization. The authors construct 19 private programs, 44 anti-analysis primitives, 262 binary instances, and 1,572 deterministic grading tasks covering security-relevant reverse-engineering scenarios.

The Next Challenge for Agentic Cybersecurity: A Realistic, Contamination-Free Reverse Engineering Benchmark
Evaluated models: GPT-5.6 Sol, Claude-Opus-5, GPT-5.5+2 more
  • GPT-5.6 Sol
  • Claude-Opus-5
  • GPT-5.5
  • Grok 4.5
  • GLM 5.2

Trajectory Poisoning in Self-Evolving Agent Skills

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Self-evolving agent-skill systems may promote recurring, attacker-controlled execution records into persistent reusable instructions. The paper evaluates whether poisoned but task-plausible trajectories survive aggregation and appear in generated skill artifacts, using inert canary behaviors and two structurally different skill-evolution pipelines.

When Experience Becomes Instruction: Trajectory Poisoning in Self-Evolving Agent Skill Systems
Evaluated models: GPT-5.4, MiniMax M2.5, DeepSeek V3.2+3 more
  • GPT-5.4
  • MiniMax M2.5
  • DeepSeek V3.2
  • DeepSeek V4-Pro
  • Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
  • Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Dynamic Security Testing for Third-Party Agent Skills

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

SkillSentry evaluates third-party agent skills by constructing source-grounded decoy environments and comparing matched executions with and without the tested skill. The method requires completed, observable, skill-attributed side effects rather than treating suspicious text, ordinary privileged operations, or unexecuted paths as proven malicious behavior.

SkillSentry: Adaptive Honey Worlds for Dynamic Safety Testing of Agent Skills
Evaluated models: DeepSeek V4-Pro

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

Repository-Level Coding Agent Vulnerability Detection Gaps

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

VulnGym measures whether coding agents can locate and explain repository-level security vulnerabilities from realistic advisory and source-code context. The benchmark contains 184 reviewed advisories, 408 line-annotated vulnerability entries, and 23 repositories, with separate end-to-end detection and oracle-conditioned localization tasks.

VulnGym: Benchmarking Coding Agents for Repository-Level Vulnerability Detection
Evaluated models: DeepSeek V4 Flash, GLM 5.2, MiniMax-M3+4 more
  • DeepSeek V4 Flash
  • GLM 5.2
  • MiniMax-M3
  • Qwen3.5-2B
  • Qwen3.5-4B
  • Qwen3.5-9B
  • Qwen3.5-27B

Persistent Agent Memory Poisoning and Incomplete Repair

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

MemSecBench follows malicious agent-memory content from initial write through persistence, retrieval, action selection, execution, and attempted selective repair. Its controlled Write–Execute–Forget protocol evaluates 310 human-reviewed cases across two harnesses, four memory backends, three model backends, and seven evidence-gated lifecycle checkpoints.

MemSecBench: Tracking Agent Memory Poisoning from Persistence to Consequence and Repair
Evaluated models: GPT-5.5, DeepSeek V4-Pro, MiniMax-M3

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.