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

31 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

Evolutionary Hidden Knowledge Recovery

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) subjected to machine unlearning techniques (specifically AltPO, GradDiff, IDKDPO, IDKNLL, UNDIAL, NPO, and SimNPO) contain a vulnerability regarding the persistence of latent knowledge. Despite achieving high "forgetting" scores on standard, benign benchmarks, these models remain susceptible to black-box evolutionary adversarial attacks. An attacker can utilize an automated framework (REBEL) comprising a "Hacker" model and a "Judge" model to iteratively mutate…

REBEL: Hidden Knowledge Recovery via Evolutionary-Based Evaluation Loop
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

Activation-Level Privacy Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Conversational Large Language Model (LLM) agents integrated with privileged data sources (e.g., medical records, organizational emails) are vulnerable to contextually inappropriate information disclosure due to failures in enforcing Contextual Integrity (CI) norms. Standard semantic input/output filters and generic safety guardrails (e.g., Llama Guard) fail to detect "mosaic attacks" and multi-turn conversational manipulation. In these attacks, adversaries decompose a malicious query into a…

NeuroFilter: Privacy Guardrails for Conversational LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 7B+3 more
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 72B

CoT Trajectory Data Leak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) employing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) generation are vulnerable to sensitive information leakage through intermediate reasoning steps, even after undergoing standard unlearning procedures (such as Gradient Ascent, Direct Preference Optimization, or KL Minimization). While these fine-tuning-based unlearning methods typically suppress sensitive content in the final generated answer, they fail to purge the information from the model's internal reasoning trajectory…

STaR: Sensitive Trajectory Regulation for Unlearning in Large Reasoning Models
Evaluated models: o1, DeepSeek R1

Production LLM Copyright Extraction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Production Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to long-form training data extraction via a two-phase prompt injection attack. This vulnerability allows an attacker to recover substantial portions of memorized, copyrighted text (such as novels) by exploiting the model's autoregressive text completion capabilities. The attack methodology involves two distinct phases: 1. Prefix Completion Probe: The attacker provides a short "seed" sequence (e.g., the first sentence of a book) coupled…

Extracting Books from Production Language Models
Evaluated models: Claude 3.7 Sonnet 20250219, GPT-4.1 2025-04-14, Gemini 2.5 Pro+1 more
  • Claude 3.7 Sonnet 20250219
  • GPT-4.1 2025-04-14
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro
  • Grok 3

Guardrail Policy Extraction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A black-box guardrail reverse-engineering vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) serving systems that employ output filtering mechanisms. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to replicate the proprietary decision-making policy and rule sets of the target's safety guardrail without direct access to model parameters. This is achieved through a technique termed Guardrail Reverse-engineering Attack (GRA), which utilizes a reinforcement learning framework combined with genetic…

Black-Box Guardrail Reverse-engineering Attack
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, Llama 3.1 8B

Pervasive Multi-turn Jailbreaks

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multiple open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs)—specifically those prioritizing capability over safety alignment—exhibit a critical vulnerability to adaptive multi-turn prompt injection and jailbreak attacks. While these models effectively reject isolated, single-turn adversarial inputs (averaging ~13.11% Attack Success Rate), they fail to maintain safety guardrails and policy enforcement across extended conversational contexts. By leveraging iterative strategies such as "Crescendo" (gradual…

Death by a Thousand Prompts: Open Model Vulnerability Analysis
Evaluated models: GPT-oss 20B, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Mistral Large 2+5 more
  • GPT-oss 20B
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Mistral Large 2
  • DeepSeek V3.1
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Gemma 3 1B
  • Phi-4
  • GLM 4.5 Air

Latent Space Discontinuity Exploitation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in certain Large Language Models and diffusion models due to discontinuities in their latent space, which arise from data sparsity during training. An attacker can craft inputs containing lexically rare or semantically ambiguous constructs to guide the model's inference process toward these unstable, poorly-conditioned regions. This technique, termed "Alignment Degradation Induction," can degrade or bypass safety alignment mechanisms. Through iterative, multi-turn…

Exploiting Latent Space Discontinuities for Building Universal LLM Jailbreaks and Data Extraction Attacks
Evaluated models: Not reported

Trust Paradox Agent Over-Exposure

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A privilege escalation and information disclosure vulnerability exists in Large Language Model (LLM) based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) utilizing explicit inter-agent trust modeling. When the internal trust coefficient ($\tau$) between a Custodian-Agent (holding sensitive data) and a Seeker-Agent is set to a high level (e.g., $\tau=0.9$) to optimize coordination efficiency, the Custodian-Agent systematically fails to enforce Minimum Necessary Information (MNI) principles. This…

The Trust Paradox in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems: When Collaboration Becomes a Security Vulnerability
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B

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.