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

6 entries

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

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

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

Incomplete MCP Tool-Call Attack Detection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

The MTGuard study evaluates unsafe Model Context Protocol tool calls originating from compromised server data, host-side execution changes, and malicious user-controlled resources. Its hybrid monitor combines pre-execution parameter inspection, behavioral observation, and post-execution result verification across browser-automation and financial-analysis agents.

Hybrid Analysis for Secure MCP Tool Use in LLM Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-5.6 Luna, DeepSeek V4 Flash, DeepSeek V4-Pro

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

Quantization Contrastive Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A malicious model supply chain vulnerability exists involving a technique termed Adversarial Contrastive Learning (ACL) for Large Language Model (LLM) quantization attacks. This vulnerability allows an attacker to publish a model that appears benign and preserves high utility in full precision (e.g., BF16 or FP32) but exhibits malicious behaviors—such as jailbreak, over-refusal, or advertisement injection—immediately upon zero-shot quantization (e.g., INT8, FP4, or NF4).

Adversarial Contrastive Learning for LLM Quantization Attacks
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct+1 more
  • Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

RLHF Preference Data Poisoning

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An untrusted reinforcement-learning-from-human-feedback (RLHF) platform can selectively manipulate preference samples associated with an attacker's target domain. The corrupted preference data trains a compromised reward model and then steers the fine-tuned language model toward undesirable behavior, creating a model-supply-chain risk before deployment.

LLM Misalignment via Adversarial RLHF Platforms
Evaluated models: Not reported

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.