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

17 entries

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

LLM Prefix Cache Reconstruction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Automatic Prefix Caching (APC) in multi-tenant LLM serving systems introduces a timing side-channel vulnerability that permits cross-tenant data leakage. APC shares computed Key-Value (KV) tensors across different users when their requests share identical initial tokens. Because reusing cached tensors is significantly faster than recomputing them, a measurable difference in Time-To-First-Token (TTFT) exists between cache hits and misses. An attacker can exploit this shared cache by sending…

PrefixWall: Mitigating Prefix Caching Side Channels in Shared LLM Systems
Evaluated models: Gemma 3 4B IT, Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 2 13B Chat+6 more
  • Gemma 3 4B IT
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 2 13B Chat
  • LLaVA OneVision Qwen2 0.5B
  • LLaVA OneVision Qwen2 7B Chat
  • Qwen2-VL 2B Instruct
  • Qwen2-VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct

Efficient KV-Cache Prompt Leakage

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in multi-tenant LLM serving frameworks allows attackers to reconstruct the private prompts of other users via an active Key-Value (KV) cache side-channel. Frameworks that utilize shared KV caches alongside specific scheduling policies, such as Longest Prefix Match (LPM), prioritize waiting requests based on the length of their matched prefix tokens. An attacker can exploit this by iteratively sending batches of guessed tokens mixed with dummy queries. If a guessed token matches…

OptiLeak: Efficient Prompt Reconstruction via Reinforcement Learning in Multi-tenant LLM Services
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2.5 3B

Fill-Squeeze Scheduler DoS

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

LLM serving frameworks utilizing continuous batching and PagedAttention (such as vLLM, SGLang, and Orca) are vulnerable to a resource exhaustion Denial-of-Service attack known as "Fill and Squeeze." An unprivileged remote attacker can exploit the deterministic state transitions of the scheduler's memory management to induce severe latency or service denial. The attack leverages a side-channel vulnerability where Inter-Token Latency (ITL) correlates linearly with global KV-cache usage due to…

Rethinking Latency Denial-of-Service: Attacking the LLM Serving Framework, Not the Model
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 8B, Gemma 3 12B IT, DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B+1 more
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Gemma 3 12B IT
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Semantic Cache Collision Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Semantic caching mechanisms in LLM applications are vulnerable to cross-tenant cache key collision attacks (CacheAttack) due to the inherent mathematical conflict between locality-preserving fuzzy hashing and cryptographic collision resistance (the avalanche effect). An attacker can leverage gradient-based search algorithms to optimize an adversarial discrete suffix that, when appended to a malicious prompt, forces its output embedding vector to collide with the embedding of a targeted benign…

From Similarity to Vulnerability: Key Collision Attack on LLM Semantic Caching
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, DeepSeek R1

Logit Leakage Model Clone

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) inference APIs that expose top-k logits or log-probabilities are vulnerable to model extraction and cloning. An attacker can execute a two-stage attack to replicate the proprietary model without access to weights, gradients, or training data. First, by submitting fewer than 10,000 random queries and aggregating the returned unrounded logits, the attacker recovers the model's output projection matrix using Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). Second, the attacker…

Clone What You Can't Steal: Black-Box LLM Replication via Logit Leakage and Distillation
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, Mistral 7B

LLM Agent TOCTOU Vulnerabilities

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) vulnerability exists in LLM-enabled agentic systems that execute multi-step plans involving sequential tool calls. The vulnerability arises because plans are not executed atomically. An agent may perform a "check" operation (e.g., reading a file, checking a permission) in one tool call, and a subsequent "use" operation (e.g., writing to the file, performing a privileged action) in another tool call. A temporal gap between these calls, often used for LLM…

Mind the Gap: Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use Vulnerabilities in LLM-Enabled Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-4o

Automated LLM Fingerprinting

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exposed via public APIs are vulnerable to model fingerprinting attacks where an attacker can identify the exact backend model family and version (e.g., distinguishing Mistral-7B-v0.1 from v0.3) by analyzing response patterns. While traditional fingerprinting relies on manual query curation, this vulnerability is exacerbated by Reinforcement Learning (RL) based query optimization. An attacker can train an RL agent (specifically using Proximal Policy Optimization) to…

Attacks and defenses against llm fingerprinting
Evaluated models: Mistral 7B, Qwen 2 5B, Gemma 2 2B+1 more
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2 5B
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Gemma 7B

KV-Cache Sharing Timing Side-channel

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multi-tenant Large Language Model (LLM) inference systems utilizing global Key-Value (KV) cache sharing are vulnerable to a timing side-channel attack. By measuring the Time-To-First-Token (TTFT) latency of crafted API requests, an unprivileged remote attacker can determine if specific token sequences have been previously processed and cached by the system for other users. This observable timing difference between cache hits (low TTFT) and cache misses (high TTFT) allows for the token-by-token…

Selective KV-Cache Sharing to Mitigate Timing Side-Channels in LLM Inference
Evaluated models: Phi-4 14B, Qwen 3 30B-A3B, Qwen 3 32B+3 more
  • Phi-4 14B
  • Qwen 3 30B-A3B
  • Qwen 3 32B
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Qwen 3 235B-A22B
  • DeepSeek R1

Activation Steering Leaks PII

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to activation steering attacks that bypass safety and privacy mechanisms. By manipulating internal attention head activations using lightweight linear probes trained on refusal/disclosure behavior, an attacker can induce the model to reveal Personally Identifiable Information (PII) memorized during training, including sensitive attributes like sexual orientation, relationships, and life events. The attack does not require adversarial prompts or…

PII Jailbreaking in LLMs via Activation Steering Reveals Personal Information Leakage
Evaluated models: Gemma 2 9B, GLM 9B, GPT-4+4 more
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • GLM 9B
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o Mini
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Llama 7B
  • Qwen 7B

Asynchronous Audio Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

End-to-end Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) are vulnerable to AudioJailbreak, a novel attack that appends adversarial audio perturbations ("jailbreak audios") to user prompts. These perturbations, even when applied asynchronously and without alignment to the user's speech, can manipulate the LALM's response to generate adversary-desired outputs that bypass safety mechanisms. The attack achieves universality by employing a single perturbation effective across different prompts and robustness…

AudioJailbreak: Jailbreak Attacks against End-to-End Large Audio-Language Models
Evaluated models: BLSP, FunAudioLLM, GPT-4o+9 more
  • BLSP
  • FunAudioLLM
  • GPT-4o
  • Ichigo
  • Llama Omni
  • LLaSM
  • Mini-Omni
  • Mini-Omni 2
  • Qwen 2 Audio
  • Qwen Audio
  • SALMONN
  • SpeechGPT

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.