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

46 entries

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

Visual prompt injection crosses document trust boundaries

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Untrusted document images can redirect vision-language agents across instruction and tool-authorization boundaries. Repeat-After-Me evaluates six victim models on constructed document tasks.

Repeat-After-Me: Black-Box Adaptive Visual Prompt Injection
Evaluated models: claude-opus-4-7, GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro+3 more
  • claude-opus-4-7
  • GPT-5.5
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro
  • Qwen3.6-27B
  • Qwen3-VL 32B Instruct
  • InternVL3.5 38B Instruct

Observation Poisons Agent Memory

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Memory-augmented LLM web agents utilizing raw trajectory memory are vulnerable to Environment-injected Trajectory-based Agent Memory Poisoning (eTAMP). Attackers can embed malicious instructions within user-generated web content (e.g., product pages, forum posts). When the agent processes this content during a routine task, the instructions are passively ingested into its raw trajectory memory. During subsequent, entirely separate tasks on different websites, semantic retrieval mechanisms pull…

Poison Once, Exploit Forever: Environment-Injected Memory Poisoning Attacks on Web Agents
Evaluated models: GPT-5 Mini, GPT-5.2, GPT-oss 120B+3 more
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • GPT-5.2
  • GPT-oss 120B
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 72B
  • Qwen3-VL-32B
  • Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Invisible Visual Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An imperceptible visual prompt injection vulnerability in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) allows attackers to execute precise command-hijacking via a Covert Triggered dual-Target Attack (CoTTA). By embedding a bounded, learnable textual overlay ($L_\infty$ norm bound $\varepsilon \le 16$) and adversarial noise into an input image, the attack forces the source image's internal feature representation to align with both the textual and visual embeddings of an attacker-specified…

Adversarial Prompt Injection Attack on Multimodal Large Language Models
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-5

Agentic Robot Instruction Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are vulnerable to targeted, low-budget textual perturbations in their natural-language instruction inputs, which can maliciously alter sequential decision-making and downstream physical robotic behavior. Because VLA policies tightly couple language, perception, and control, bounded edits—such as character-level typos, token attribute swaps, or prompt-level uncertainty clauses—propagate through the model's execution trajectory. This allows a black-box…

SABER: A Stealthy Agentic Black-Box Attack Framework for Vision-Language-Action Models
Evaluated models: Not reported

Visual Memory Multi-Turn Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to Visual Memory Injection (VMI), a stealthy targeted attack targeting multi-turn conversations. An attacker can embed an imperceptible adversarial perturbation ($L_\infty \le 8/255$) into a seemingly benign image. Because the visual input persists in the model's context throughout a multi-turn dialogue, the injected payload remains dormant. By utilizing "benign anchoring" and "context-cycling" during optimization, the attacker ensures the…

Visual Memory Injection Attacks for Multi-Turn Conversations
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct, Qwen3-VL 8B Instruct, LLaVA-OneVision 1.5 8B Instruct+2 more
  • Qwen 2.5 VL 7B Instruct
  • Qwen3-VL 8B Instruct
  • LLaVA-OneVision 1.5 8B Instruct
  • Qwen-SEA-LION v4 8B VL
  • QoQ-Med3-VL 8B

Mobile Agent Visual Spoofing

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Mobile Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating under the "Screen-as-Interface" paradigm are vulnerable to visual indirect prompt injection and state desynchronization. Agents that rely on unstructured visual data (screenshots) and Accessibility Service APIs to perceive the environment lack a mechanism to distinguish between trusted system UI elements and untrusted content (e.g., web pages, emails, or malicious overlays). An attacker can inject visual cues, fake notifications, or hidden…

Blind Gods and Broken Screens: Architecting a Secure, Intent-Centric Mobile Agent Operating System
Evaluated models: Not reported

Image Editing Visual Prompt Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Image Editing Models (LIEMs) supporting vision-prompt editing are vulnerable to Vision-Centric Jailbreak Attacks (VJA). This vulnerability arises from a modality mismatch in safety alignment: while safeguards primarily analyze textual instructions for policy violations, the underlying models are capable of interpreting and executing instructions embedded directly within the visual input (e.g., typographic text drawn on the image, arrows, symbols, or specific markings). An attacker can…

When the Prompt Becomes Visual: Vision-Centric Jailbreak Attacks for Large Image Editing Models
Evaluated models: GPT Image 1.5, Gemini 3 Pro Image, Seedream 4.5+5 more
  • GPT Image 1.5
  • Gemini 3 Pro Image
  • Seedream 4.5
  • Qwen-Image-Edit-2512
  • Qwen-Image-Edit-Safe
  • BAGEL 14B
  • Flux 2.0 Dev 32B
  • LongCat-Image-Edit

Adaptive Web Agent Prompt Injection

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Model (LLM) based web agents (such as those built using the BrowserUse scaffold) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attacks when autonomously navigating and processing untrusted web content. Unlike standard Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), this vulnerability occurs when the LLM orchestrator consumes the DOM or visual screenshots of a webpage containing concealed or contextually disguised adversarial instructions. The LLM interprets these embedded text strings as…

MUZZLE: Adaptive Agentic Red-Teaming of Web Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, GPT-4o, Qwen3-VL 32B Instruct

Invisible Prompt Phishing Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Multimodal LLM-based phishing detection systems are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection via "perceptual asymmetry." Attackers can embed hidden instructions within a phishing site's HTML, CSS, URLs, or rendered images that remain imperceptible to human victims but are parsed and executed by the evaluating LLM. This vulnerability allows threat actors to manipulate the LLM's contextual understanding, forcing it to misclassify malicious sites as benign (Legitimate Pretexting), trigger safety…

Clouding the Mirror: Stealthy Prompt Injection Attacks Targeting LLM-based Phishing Detection
Evaluated models: GPT-5, Grok 4 Fast Non-Reasoning, Llama 4 Maverick+1 more
  • GPT-5
  • Grok 4 Fast Non-Reasoning
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Gemma 3 27B

Progressive Attention LVLM Attack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are vulnerable to a Stage-wise Attention-Guided Attack (SAGA) that allows for the generation of highly transferable, imperceptible adversarial examples. The vulnerability stems from a positive correlation between regional cross-modal attention scores and adversarial loss sensitivity in LVLMs. An attacker can exploit this by extracting an attention map from a surrogate open-source model (e.g., Qwen3-VL) to identify high-attention "hotspots." SAGA utilizes a…

Stage-wise Attention-Guided Region Sequencing for Adversarial Attacks on Large Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 3 Pro Preview, GPT-4.1+7 more
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash
  • Gemini 3 Pro Preview
  • GPT-4.1
  • GPT-5 Mini
  • Grok 4 Fast
  • LLaVA 1.5 7B
  • Llama 4 Maverick
  • Gemma 3 4B IT
  • Qwen3-VL 30B-A3B Instruct
  • Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B Instruct

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.